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

[Owen DeLong]

Chris,

Consider the following two possibilities:

1. We put forth a policy which can pass in the APNIC region which allows IANA to allocate returned space.

2. We don't get a global policy and the ITU uses that fact as an example of why the RIR system cannot be trusted with such a vital resource.

I don't like APNICs transfer policy any more than you do, but I think there is more at stake not having a global policy than the concern about what happens to a few final breadcrumbs of IPv4 or any particular RIR getting more than their share of those crumbs.

Owen

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 2, 2010, at 4:34 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 17:25, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Chris, I can appreciate you position on this.  However, I can assure that a
>> number of the authors of the previous global policy proposal thought that a
>> mandatory requirement for return was equally important.
> 
> Understood - I see the return to and allocation from the IANA as two
> distinct halves of this issue however.
> 
>> I believe the essential portion of this policy is for IANA to have the
>> ability to allocate any address space that is returned to it, not just /8s.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> What address space an RIR returns, if any, or placing restrictions on what
>> can be done with the space once it is allocated to an RIR is and should be a
>> local policy concern.
> 
> I mostly agree with this statement, global policy should only affect
> global issues. Where I think we differ is that in this particular case
> I think that the no-transfer clause *is* a global issue, not a local
> one. Allow me to attempt to explain why:
> 
> At it's simplest, there are two ways of looking at IPv4 exhaustion and
> how to deal with the temporary IPv4 address scarcity it is causing:
> 
> 1) An IPv4 address market will solve everything.
> 2) Stewardship and generosity will be required.
> 
> If you are in camp #1, then restricting any addresses from transfers
> is obviously a bad idea. Beyond that though - this entire policy
> (which you believe to be essential) is worthless. If paid transfers
> are going to solve all the worlds IPv4 scarcity problems, then the
> IANA will never need to worry about fragments - because they will
> never have any to worry about (since everybody will just
> sell/rent/whatever IPv4 to each other).
> 
> If, however, you are in camp #2, then you believe that we should find
> ways to safeguard against any potential market abuses. Providing
> alternative means to those who truly need and will use IPv4 addresses
> to grow the Internet in meaningful ways. In this case, you likely want
> to see at least some folks (continue to) return unneeded IPv4
> addresses. Perhaps especially from the vast tracts of Legacy space,
> which should be returned directly to the IANA.
> 
> If we are going to ask our fellow community members to forgo the
> market and return addresses that they may well be able to sell, then
> shouldn't we be able to assure them that those same addresses will not
> be sold by the organization who receives them? Shouldn't they be
> protected from profiteering if they are to do what we are telling them
> is the right thing?
> 
>> I must admit that I would prefer that APNIC transfer policy was needs based,
>> but that is and should be the APNIC community's choice.  Just as how ARIN
>> should deal with address space returned to it should be the ARIN community's
>> choice.
> 
> I do not believe that any (at least not many) in the APNIC community
> wrote their policy to create any of the negatives I have alluded to
> here. I do think that we should protect against those negatives if we
> expect anyone to return space to the IANA. If we do not expect anyone
> to return space - then we don't need a policy for IANA to hand out
> that space at all.
> 
>> If we can focus on the essential functions of IANA and stay out of all local
>> policy issues, I think we might have a policy that can be passed globally.
> 
> I hope we are close to such a policy.
> ~Chris
> 
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> 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
>> ===============================================
>> 
> 
> -- 
> @ChrisGrundemann
> weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
> www.burningwiththebush.com
> www.coisoc.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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.