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

Hannigan, Martin marty at akamai.com
Mon Aug 30 18:37:50 EDT 2010

On 8/30/10 5:54 PM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

I don't think that this is the intention of the transfer policy in APNIC,
but this is an unfortunate effect of it and one that is a rather large,
real, risk and which contributed to the demise of the previous discussion.

[ clip ]
>> 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.

I do too. This is part of the process. The operation of the allocation
method does not match the stated intent of the proposal.

>From the proposal:

    "Defines "need" as the basis for further IPv4 allocations by the IANA."

The feedback from the APNIC region pointed out a mechanical problem. While
need is intact in the definition of exhaustion and use, fairness was lost.
Minor revision. If there's something to focus on it would be how to make
this work if the transfer section will not work.

[ clip ]

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list