[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2010-10 - Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon Aug 30 17:54:31 EDT 2010

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 15:29, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> This isn't going to fly in APNIC.  APNIC will not agree to the no transfer
> provision.  Furthermore, as currently written it sets up a winner take all
> race to the bottom, a maximum allocation size would be an easy to fix this
> without making things to complicated.

The no-transfer provision is essential. Without it, a region with a
very liberal / non-needs-based transfer policy can potentially suck
all of the remnants into their region and sell them off.

As one of the authors of this proposal I can say without a doubt that
I would withdraw my support for (and vehemently oppose) it sans that

> During the afternoon tea break on Friday, Owen and had a conversation with,
> Gaurab Raj Upadhaya (the new sig-policy chair for APNIC), Philip Smith, and
> Filiz Yilmaz (from RIPE), and Leslie stopped by for a bit too. Leslie did
> not comment on policy, but it was very helpful to have someone who had
> actually interacted with IANA involved in the conversation.
> The consensus of those gathered was that a very simple policy was needed,
> focusing on IANA.  It should allow IANA to accept returns of /24 or large
> blocks. (no requirements for return by RIRs or anyone else for that matter).
>  Then allow IANA to allocate on a needs basis to the RIRs with a minimum
> block size /24 and no more than the equilivant of a /10 at one time.
> The /10 at a time limit is intended to prevent a winner takes all race to
> the bottom and allow some possibility that a larger block could be shared
> between multiple RIRs without having addresses set idle if an RIR needs
> them.
> So my question to the rest of the AC, how should we proceed, keep text that
> we know will not succeed as global policy or change text?  What would it
> take to make a radical change to the Draft Policy?  Otherwise, we would need
> to come to the next meeting with new text which likely be past IANA run-out.

I disagree that radical changes are needed. Simply adding a maximum
allocation to the existing proposal would accomplish this.

> Comments, rotten fruit, etc...

I can tell you that the group of co-authors who introduced this policy
are actively reviewing and discussing all feedback from APNIC and plan
to work with the AC Shepherds to make any edits necessary before the
text is frozen.


> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE      Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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