[ppml] Policy Proposal: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs

Scott Leibrand sleibrand at internap.com
Fri Aug 17 21:39:17 EDT 2007

This seems like a reasonably fair way to exhaust the IANA free pool of 
IPv4 addresses.  I would support this proposal.


Member Services wrote:
> ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with the ARIN
> Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being
> posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being placed on
> ARIN's website.
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review this proposal at their next
> regularly scheduled meeting. The AC may decide to:
>    1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as written. If the
> AC accepts the proposal, it will be posted as a formal policy proposal
> to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting.
>    2. Postpone their decision regarding the proposal until the next
> regularly scheduled AC meeting in order to work with the author. The AC
> will work with the author to clarify, combine or divide the proposal. At
> their following meeting the AC will accept or not accept the proposal.
>    3. Not accept the proposal. If the AC does not accept the proposal,
> the AC will explain their decision. If a proposal is not accepted, then
> the author may elect to use the petition process to advance their
> proposal. If the author elects not to petition or the  petition fails,
> then the proposal will be closed.
> The AC will assign shepherds in the near future. ARIN will provide the
> names of the shepherds to the community via the PPML.
> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this proposal on
> the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
> The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html
> Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
> Regards,
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> ## * ##
> Policy Proposal Name: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs
> Author: JPNIC IPv4 countdown policy team;
>                    Akinori MAEMURA
>                    Akira NAKAGAWA
>                    Izumi OKUTANI
>                    Kosuke ITO
>                    Kuniaki KONDO
>                    Shuji NAKAMURA
>                    Susumu SATO
>                    Takashi ARANO
>                    Tomohiro FUJISAKI
>                    Tomoya YOSHIDA
>                    Toshiyuki HOSAKA
> Proposal Version: 2
> Submission Date: 2007/08/17
> Proposal type: new
> Policy term:renewable
> Policy statement:
> 1) Distribute a single /8 to each RIR at the point when new IANA free
>     pool hits 5 */8. This date is defined as "IANA Exhaustion Date".
> 2) It should be completely left up to each RIR communities to define a
>     regional policy on how to distribute the remaining RIR free pool to
>     LIRs within their respective regions after "IANA Exhaustion Date".
>     Note 1: It is fine for an RIR to continue operations with the
>             existing policy if that is the consensus decision of the
>             respective RIR community.
>     Note 2: Address recovery and re-distribution of recovered address
>             space is another important measure for considerations, but
>             should be treated as a separate policy proposal from
>             distribution of new IANA pool.
> 3) RIRs should provide an official projection on IANA Exhaustion Date
>     to the community through their website, at their Policy Meetings
>     and through any other effective means.
> Rationale:
> [current problem]
> There are two major issues in terms of address management if no measures
> are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.
> 1) Continue applying a global coordinated policy for distribution of the
>     last piece(s) of RIR's unallocated address block does not match the
>     reality of the situation in each RIR region.
>     Issues each RIR region will face during the exhaustion period vary by
>     region as the level of development of IPv4 and IPv6 are widely
>     different. As a result, applying a global co-ordinated policy may not
>     adequately address issues in a certain region while it could be work
>     for the others.
>     For example, in a region where late comers desperately need even
>     small blocks of IPv4 addresses to access to the IPv4 Internet, a
>     policy that defines the target of allocations/assignments of IPv4
>     address space to be late comers would be appropriate in such region.
>     This would allow availablilty of IPv4 address space for such
>     requirements for more years.
>     Another example comes from difference in IPv6 deployment rate.
>     For a region where IPv6 deployment rate is low, measures may be
>     necessary to prolong IPv4 address life for the existing business as
>     well as for new businesses until networks are IPv6 ready. Some
>     regions may have strong needs to secure IPv4 address space for
>     translators.
>     A globally coordinated policy which addresses all the issues listed
>     above to meet the needs for all RIR regions may result in not solving
>     issues in any of the regions.
> 2) LIRs and stakeholders remain unprepared for the situation if they are
>     not informed
>     If LIRs and the community are uninformed of the exhaustion, their
>     services and networks remain unprepared to face the situation at the
>     time of exhaustion.
> [Objective of the proposal]
> This proposal seeks to provide the following solutions to the problems
> listed above.
> 1) RIR community should be able to define their own regional policies on
>     how to assign the last piece(s) of allocation block in order to
>     address their own regional issues during the exhaustion period.
> 2) RIRs should provide official projection of the date when LIRs will be
>     able to receive the allocations under the current criteria. The
>     criteria should remain consistent until this date in order to avoid
>     confusion.
> [Pros and Cons]
> Pros:
> + It allows each RIR community to define a policy on how to distribute
>    the last piece(s) of allocations which best matches their situation.
> + It helps LIR better informed of the date when they are able to receive
>    allocations from RIRs under the current criteria and prepare for the
>    event.
> Cons:
> + Concerns could be raised about allocating a fixed size to all RIRs,
>    that it artificially fastens the consumption rate of some RIR regions.
>    However, its impact is kept to minimum by keeping the allocation size
>    to a single /8 which makes merely 3-4 months difference.
> + Concerns could be raised that explicitly allowing regional policies
>    will encourage RIR shopping. However, this should not happen if the
>    requirements within each region is adequately reflected in each RIR's
>    policy through PDP. RIR may also chose to add criteria to prevent LIRs
>    from other regions submitting such requests.
> Timetable for implementation:
> Immediate after all 5 RIRs (and possibly ICANN) ratifies the policy.
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list