[ppml] Policy Proposal: Global Policy for the Allocation of theRemaining IPv4 Address Space

[Jason Schiller]

I am trying to understand what is the desired effect of this policy.  As
far as I can tell, the goal of this policy is to assign the last chunk of
IP addresses to each of the RIRs in order to accomplish two things.  

1. Allow each RIR to be certain about how much of the remaing space they
have.

2. Give each RIR time to implement new policy to make the runout more
managable.

If that is the case, then does it make more sense to talk in units of
18-month supply of addresses instead of number of /8s?  For example, when
IANA has only a 36 month supply of IPv4 addresses, IANA will automatically
allocate a 36 month supply of addresses to each RIR based on the current
demand of each RIR. (maybe round up to the nearest /8)

This does three things.  
1. It addresses Alain's concerns about justified need.
2. It give all RIRs a roughly equal amount of time to craft their
individual policies.
3. It will minimize the amount of time where one RIR is exhausted and
demand rushes to the remaining RIRs.  (not sure if this is a concern)

__Jason

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Roque Gagliano wrote:

> > This means that when we reach T minus 25 /8's,
> > some organizations will be unable to obtain the IPv4 addresses that they
> > need to continue growing the network.
> 
> Not true. At that time the RIR will received their last allocations. If
> there are not policies changes at the RIRs, organizations will continue
> to receive allocations as usual untill its RIR pool is exhausted.
> However, each RIR will be able to have their own "soft landing" policies
> or any policies to sub-allocate with this "last allocation".
> 

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Member Services wrote:

> Rationale:
>
> The IANA pool of allocation units of IPv4 addresses (/8s) is decreasing
> rapidly. A new policy is proposed  to replace the current "on demand"
> policy in order to bring certainty on how the remaining space will be
> allocated. This policy eliminates the pressure on the remaining central
> pool of addresses by allocating equal amount of allocation units (N) to
> each RIR.


On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Durand, Alain wrote:

> As a side note, this proposal is revisiting one of the major tenet
> of IP allocation: demonstated need. IMHO, this is setting a
> fairly dangerous precendent, as it could be reuse in each region
> by saying: let's re-divide whatever the local RIR has equaly among its
> member...


On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/
>
> Figure Figure 28 is probably the most interesting.  At the extremes,
> AfriNIC is around 1 /8 per year right now, where as ARIN is 3 /8's
> per year.  Also note that they are projected to grow at quite a
> different rate. (I believe this graph is in /8's per month, although
> the y-axis is not labeled.  This is based on comparing it with other
> graphs on the site.)
>
> Thus giving ARIN 5 /8's would be perhaps 18 months, while for AfriNIC
> it would be a 5 year supply.