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

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 8/31/10 10:48 AM, "Dylan Ebner" <dylan.ebner at crlmed.com> wrote:

> I think the transfer policy is important, but at Owen states, an enabling
> policy is also very important and possibly the policy could move forward
> without it if language was added that somehow required the transfer policy in
> the future.

That would be a non-starter for the APNIC region. The proposal added an
inverse option that disallowed it now, but allowed it in the future by
suggesting that the RIR's work together and establish a globally coordinated
or global transfer policy. They viewed that as meddling; I tend to disagree,
many of us are members of multiple RIR's.a q   Q   q       qa

> Also, and I may be mistaken on this, doesn't IANA have a policy in which they
> are preferencing /8 allocations to RIRs that service developing nations? If

It's not policy, it's procedure. The remaining blocks of IPv4 addresses are
dirty and the "developing nations" would be allocated something that would
be theoretically cleaner as the end approaches. I can't find Leo Vegoda's
/ICANN blog posting about it. Someone else may have it.


> they do, what happens if final /8 blocks start to run out and then the RIRs
> that should be getting those /8 allocations cannot get the blocks they need. I
> worry that AfriNIC and LACNIC will end up getting shafted here.

The last 5 /8's are to be allocated evenly across the five RIR's. I don't
see anything that would put that in jeopardy and any change to that final
allocation is likely to be unpopular. I believe that AfriNIC and LACNIC are
the beneficiaries of that ICANN procedure.


[ clip ]