[arin-ppml] IANA advice re: Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation

Sat Dec 7 08:44:05 EST 2013

Please remember that ARIN just reported to us that 51% of all fulfilled IPv4 requests in 2013 YTD have been to new entrants, and 86% of end-user requests fulfilled were to new entrants. In my experience these are generally just businesses trying to run or improve their network, often by establishing BGP multi-homed ness for the first time, and desiring to do so with an addressing schema independent of their current carriers.

Respectfully, Bill, most of these new entrants haven't missed the boat.  They're still finding their way through the terminal looking for ... wait for it ... CLUE *big grin*

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2013 4:34:04 AM
To: Jason Schiller
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IANA advice re: Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation

That about sums my feeling about it. This is not an earth-shaking issue from my point of view.  If RIRs and their constituents are at a point where the scraps of v4 returned to IANA are that important to their business processes, then they have missed the boat.
Happy Holidays to all.....

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:
Bill,

I appreciate you thoughts on this matter, but I am not sure how to translate that to actionable advice to IANA who wants to make sure their process is clear, and the community is not surprised by what ever action they take.

I think it boils down to IANA does not have to wait for the next six month window to open the first time it draws down from the Recovered IPv4 Pool, but they can use their discretion and wait for the window if the window opening is close,  or if there is other significantly sized space whose return is eminent.

___Jason

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com<mailto:billdarte at gmail.com>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
    <mailto:jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>>|571-266-0006<tel:571-266-0006> <tel:571-266-0006<tel:571-266-0006>>

--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>
<mailto:jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>>|571-266-0006<tel: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<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

--
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815<tel:1-612-626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952<tel:1-612-812-9952>
================================================

--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006<tel: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<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006<tel:571-266-0006>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20131207/bd342e50/attachment.htm>