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

[Izumi Okutani]

Thanks for your input Marla, and apologies for taking some time to reply.

Just to clarify our intention, we think this will help reduce confusion
for distribution of the last few IANA blocks.

For example, if ARIN was planning to request for 2*/8 next month, but
APNIC (or any other RIR) comes just before and IANA pool runs out as a
result, ARIN will be left with 0 additional block it was counting on.
This will also affect distribution of the last ARIN block within the
region as you don't know which would be the last block until the last
minute.

By pre-defining what each RIR will receive in advance (with the size
which does not affect each RIR's exhaustion date), we think it helps
solve this issue and minimize confusion at the time of exhaustion.

I see your point about section 2, so I'll remove it from my slides at
the meeting. thanks. I'd also be happy to remove section 3 if it's an
obvious fact which doesn't need to be shared.


izumi

Azinger, Marla さんは書きました:
> Here are my two cents:
> 
> -I don't support this.  Let it run out.  Write a policy figuring out what IANA does once contiguous requests cant be met.
> 
> -Section 2 needs to be removed.  It isn't policy and more a suggestion/guidance of things that RIR's should think about doing.
> -Section 3 needs to be removed.  It isn't policy and more a staff requirement for RIR's.
> 
> Cheers!
> Marla Azinger
> Frontier Communications
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Member Services
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:20 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to
> RIRs
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.