[arin-ppml] IANA advice re: Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation
Bill Darte
billdarte at gmail.com
Fri Dec 6 08:07:18 EST 2013
I hear what you are saying, and I do think that the issue is discretion.
IF there is little to no addresses in the pool, then wait...however long,
until the next window opens, hoping that some returns will happen. IF it
were known that some returns were likely or in process, then wait until
they are available to add to what exists or reach the threshold of
distribution. I think this is less an issue of timing and more an issue of
management and discretion. Without the fuzziness of the language, that
discretion is unavailable.
Still, honestly, I don't think this is a burning issue either way. IMO the
likelihood of large pools of returned addresses being available when there
is a market for them is unlikely and later when there is less demand
perhaps, then who cares....
bd
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>wrote:
> David, Bill,
>
> Does it make sense to wait even if the next window is only a month away?
> The policy states the the IP space is divided 5 ways equally and the pool
> emptied except for the remainder.
>
> This means it is unlikey additional IPs will be returned to IANA in the
> next month, and when the next window opens up in a month there will be
> nothing to allocate to the RIRs.
>
> In fact we could go a full year with no IP space returned in which case
> two windows would open and close and the RIRs would get no allocations.
>
>
> The reason for only making the allocation every 6 months is to allow
> enough time to collect IP addresses and calculate a sizable chunk to each
> RIR rather than splitting every /21 into five /24s with a remainder of thee
> /24s.
>
> At this point IANA has already been collecting IPs since 02/03/2011, much
> longer than 6 months.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> If you still think it makes sense to wait, where would you draw the line?
> Less than 3 months to a window then wait?
>
> __Jason
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:33 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> I agree with the general intent of what you have written below. However,
>> I believe the "may begin" was used to allow IANA and the RIRs some
>> flexibility to do the "right thing" based on the circumstances at the time
>> when one of the RIRs drops below /9.
>>
>> One situation where it might be the right thing to wait, is if one of the
>> RIRs drops below /9 just before one of the prescribed dates (March 1, or
>> September 1), like within a month or less. In this circumstance, I think
>> it would be best to just wait for the next prescribed date, rather than
>> make the initial disbursement and then make a scheduled disbursement less
>> than a month later.
>>
>> Where as, if one of the prescribed dates has just past, then it makes no
>> sense to wait the nearly 6 months for the next prescribed date.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> On 12/4/13, 07:37 , Jason Schiller wrote:
>>
>>> It seems fairly clear to me that that the policy instructs IANA to make
>>> the first allocation immediately upon one RIR dropping below a /9
>>> inventory, and there after must wait until the next 6-month window opens
>>> up for subsequent allocations.
>>>
>>> The window serves to allow IANA to collect IPs in its Recovered IPv4
>>> Pool, and then have fixed point in time when the amount of IPs is
>>> totaled and divided. At the time the first RIR drops below a /9, IANA
>>> will have already had sufficient time to collect IPs.
>>>
>>> It also seems obvious to me that, there is a fair bit of complexity in
>>> describing this behavior and if the authors desired IANA to wait for the
>>> next 6-month window to open, then this policy text would have been much
>>> shorter.
>>>
>>> If you think this policy suggests the IANA should wait for the next
>>> 6-month window to open, please speak up.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> __Jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com
>>> <mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wanted to advise the community, and seek its input on the question
>>> of when IANA should make its first allocation from the Recovered
>>> IPv4 Pool.
>>>
>>> It seems some read the global policy and conclude that the Recovered
>>> IPv4 Pool becomes active immediately after one RIR dipping below a
>>> /9 of inventory and IANA should straight away
>>> make an allocation and then make its next allocation after crossing
>>> the next 6-month period starting on March 1st or September 1st.
>>>
>>> It seems some read the global policy and conclude that the IANA
>>> should make its first allocation from the after crossing the next
>>> 6-month period starting on March 1st or September 1st after one RIR
>>> dipping below a /9 of inventory.
>>>
>>> In short should IANA make an allocation after one RIR dipping below
>>> a /9 of inventory or should it wait until the next 6-month period
>>> opens up?
>>>
>>> Below is the email we have received regarding this question:
>>>
>>> Dear Louie,
>>>>
>>>> As you chair the ASO AC, I am seeking your guidance on the
>>>> interpretation of the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4
>>>> Allocation
>>>> Mechanisms by the IANA, which was ratified in May 2012.
>>>>
>>>> The global policy defines states that "Allocations from the IANA may
>>>> begin once the pool is declared active." It is not clear whether
>>>> this
>>>> means that allocation from the Recovered IPv4 Pool should be made
>>>> straight away or whether they should happen at the start of the next
>>>> "IPv4 allocation period," the "6-month period following 1 March or 1
>>>> September."
>>>>
>>>> We hope you can advise us on the intended meaning of this sentence,
>>>> so
>>>> that we can implement the policy appropriately.
>>>>
>>>> We look forward to receiving your response on this question of
>>>> interpretation of the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4
>>>> Allocation
>>>> Mechanisms by the IANA.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Leo Vegoda
>>>> ICANN
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________________
>>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com
>>> <mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006 <tel:571-266-0006>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________________
>>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com
>>> <mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ================================================
>> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
>> ================================================
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20131206/4a3bd8c6/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list