[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Jun 3 16:35:40 EDT 2009 

I don't believe this has been submitted to any of the other RIRs
as yet, so, I think that the change I proposed would not slow it down.
In fact, I think it might actually help it get through faster.

Owen

On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:52 AM, David Williamson wrote:

> I support the policy as written.  I think Owen has a great idea, but
> the timeline is a problem for changes.  It would be possible to  
> start a
> new policy to correct this one with Owen's suggested changes, but  
> let's
> fast track this one *as is*.
>
> I'd even support this as written if it was declared to be a Board
> response to an emergency.  Unless there are compelling arguments in
> dissent, this should simply move forward.
>
> -David
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:01:35PM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> One thing to keep in mind here is that, because this is a Global  
>> Policy,
>> and because of the extremely tight timeframe, we need to agree on the
>> text of the proposal right away, and make sure the same text gets put
>> forward in each region.  Even if everyone approves it their first  
>> time
>> around, and LACNIC approves it through their fast-track process  
>> (since
>> it'll be exactly a year until their next meeting), we're still  
>> looking
>> at sometime in 2010 before the policy can be ratified by the ASO-AC  
>> and
>> ICANN.  That will mean we will have several months (at least) of RIRs
>> being unable to get more 16-bit ASNs from the IANA before this policy
>> could go through and make it possible again.  I've heard some very  
>> good
>> arguments in the last week that the simpler we make the change, the  
>> less
>> likely we are to run into problems that cause delays in getting this
>> approved in time for it to be useful...
>>
>> How important do you think it is to preserve the 16bit/32bit ASN
>> distinction past 1 Jan 2011?  Is it worth the increased risk of  
>> delay in
>> passing such a revised global policy?
>>
>> (As you probably figured out from my comments above, I personally
>> support this policy.)
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> While I do not support changing the RIR policy on the issuance of  
>>> ASNs,
>>> I do support this policy proposal.  I think that modifying the  
>>> IANA->RIR
>>> distribution rules to accommodate the needs of RIRs to better  
>>> serve their
>>> constituents makes sense. Further, having 16-bit ASNs trapped in the
>>> IANA free pool because 32-bit ASNs are not being accepted by  
>>> recipients
>>> is absurd and poor stewardship. We should go ahead and issue 16-bit
>>> ASNs until they run out.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that this proposal, rather than removing the  
>>> distinction
>>> in 2010 should be modified to extend the IANA->RIR duality until  
>>> such
>>> time as there are no more 16-bit ASN blocks in the IANA pool.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> On May 29, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Member Services wrote:
>>>
>>>> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to  
>>>> the
>>>> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with Policy  
>>>> Development
>>>> Process.
>>>>
>>>> This proposal is in the first stage of the Policy Development  
>>>> Process.
>>>> ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step. Staff  
>>>> does
>>>> not evaluate the proposal at this time, their goal is to make  
>>>> sure that
>>>> they understand the proposal and believe the community will as  
>>>> well.
>>>> Staff will report their results to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC)  
>>>> within
>>>> 10 days.
>>>>
>>>> The AC will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled
>>>> meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled  
>>>> meeting is
>>>> less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the  
>>>> subsequent
>>>> regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the
>>>> proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on the  
>>>> 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 Policy Development Process can be found at:
>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>>>
>>>> Mailing list subscription information can be found
>>>> at:https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Member Services
>>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ## * ##
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Policy Proposal: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)  
>>>> Policy for
>>>> Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries
>>>>
>>>> Proposal Originator: Stacy Hughes and Andrew de la Haye
>>>>
>>>> Proposal Version: 1.0
>>>>
>>>> Date: 29 May 2009
>>>>
>>>> Proposal type: modify
>>>>
>>>> Policy term: permanent
>>>>
>>>> Policy statement:
>>>>
>>>> Modification of NRPM section 10.3 extending the deadline for an
>>>> undifferentiated ASN pool by 1 year to read:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Allocation Principles
>>>>
>>>> IANA allocates ASNs to RIRs in blocks of 1024 ASNs. In this  
>>>> document the
>>>> term "ASN block" refers to a set of 1024 ASNs. Until 31 December  
>>>> 2010,
>>>> allocations of 16-bit and 32-bit only ASN blocks will be made  
>>>> separately
>>>> and independent of each other [1].
>>>>
>>>> This means until 31 December 2010, RIRs can receive two separate  
>>>> ASN
>>>> blocks, one for 16-bit ASNs and one for 32-bit only ASNs from the  
>>>> IANA
>>>> under this policy. After this date, IANA and the RIRs will cease  
>>>> to make
>>>> any distinction between 16-bit and 32-bit only ASNs, and will  
>>>> operate
>>>> ASN allocations from an undifferentiated 32-bit ASN allocation  
>>>> pool.
>>>>
>>>> Rationale:
>>>>
>>>> a. Arguments supporting the proposal
>>>>
>>>> Due to operational issues external to the IANA/RIR policy process,
>>>> 32-bit only ASNs are not being issued by the RIRs at the  
>>>> anticipated
>>>> rate. As it stands, RIRs will likely not be able to justify a new  
>>>> block
>>>> of ASNs from the IANA after 31 December 2009 due to a glut of  
>>>> free 32
>>>> bit only ASNs in the RIR’s pool. This leaves available, essential  
>>>> 16-bit
>>>> ASNs stranded in the IANA free pool. This proposal seeks to  
>>>> remedy the
>>>> potential problem by extending the deadline for differentiation  
>>>> by one
>>>> year.
>>>>
>>>> With this proposal the policy will be aligned with the actual  
>>>> reality in
>>>> regards to 32-bit ASN deployment and usage.
>>>>
>>>> The subject was raised during RIPE 58 and a presentation was made:
>>>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/asn32-take-up-report.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The feedback in this session suggested that a global policy  
>>>> proposal
>>>> should be developed and should be discussed.
>>>>
>>>> b. Arguments opposing the proposal
>>>>
>>>> Some may think that extending the previously set timeline can be
>>>> perceived as some discouragement for the deployment of 32-bit  
>>>> ASNs. One
>>>> counter argument to this is that RIRs and Internet community have  
>>>> some
>>>> other mechanisms and activities to raise awareness for 32-bit ASN  
>>>> pool
>>>> (via public presentations and trainings). These activities will  
>>>> continue
>>>> while 16-bit ASN blocks are still allocated to RIRs by the IANA  
>>>> as they
>>>> are available and they are needed.
>>>>
>>>> Timetable for implementation: Immediately upon ratification by  
>>>> ICANN
>>>> Board
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact 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 (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact 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 (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list