Policy Proposal: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs

[Member Services]

ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with the ARIN
Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being
posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being placed on
ARIN's website.

The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review this proposal at their next
regularly scheduled meeting. The AC may decide to:

   1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as written. If the
AC accepts the proposal, it will be posted as a formal policy proposal
to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting.

   2. Postpone their decision regarding the proposal until the next
regularly scheduled AC meeting in order to work with the author. The AC
will work with the author to clarify, combine or divide the proposal. At
their following meeting the AC will accept or not accept the proposal.

   3. Not accept the proposal. If the AC does not accept the proposal,
the AC will explain their decision. If a proposal is not accepted, then
the author may elect to use the petition process to advance their
proposal. If the author elects not to petition or the  petition fails,
then the proposal will be closed.

The AC will assign shepherds in the near future. ARIN will provide the
names of the shepherds to the community via the PPML.

In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this proposal on
the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.

The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html

Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Policy Proposal Name: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs

Author: JPNIC IPv4 countdown policy team;
                   Akinori MAEMURA
                   Akira NAKAGAWA
                   Izumi OKUTANI
                   Kosuke ITO
                   Kuniaki KONDO
                   Shuji NAKAMURA
                   Susumu SATO
                   Takashi ARANO
                   Tomohiro FUJISAKI
                   Tomoya YOSHIDA
                   Toshiyuki HOSAKA

Proposal Version: 2

Submission Date: 2007/08/17

Proposal type: new

Policy term:renewable

Policy statement:

1) Distribute a single /8 to each RIR at the point when new IANA free
    pool hits 5 */8. This date is defined as "IANA Exhaustion Date".

2) It should be completely left up to each RIR communities to define a
    regional policy on how to distribute the remaining RIR free pool to
    LIRs within their respective regions after "IANA Exhaustion Date".

    Note 1: It is fine for an RIR to continue operations with the
            existing policy if that is the consensus decision of the
            respective RIR community.

    Note 2: Address recovery and re-distribution of recovered address
            space is another important measure for considerations, but
            should be treated as a separate policy proposal from
            distribution of new IANA pool.

3) RIRs should provide an official projection on IANA Exhaustion Date
    to the community through their website, at their Policy Meetings
    and through any other effective means.


Rationale:
[current problem]
There are two major issues in terms of address management if no measures
are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.

1) Continue applying a global coordinated policy for distribution of the
    last piece(s) of RIR's unallocated address block does not match the
    reality of the situation in each RIR region.

    Issues each RIR region will face during the exhaustion period vary by
    region as the level of development of IPv4 and IPv6 are widely
    different. As a result, applying a global co-ordinated policy may not
    adequately address issues in a certain region while it could be work
    for the others.

    For example, in a region where late comers desperately need even
    small blocks of IPv4 addresses to access to the IPv4 Internet, a
    policy that defines the target of allocations/assignments of IPv4
    address space to be late comers would be appropriate in such region.
    This would allow availablilty of IPv4 address space for such
    requirements for more years.

    Another example comes from difference in IPv6 deployment rate.
    For a region where IPv6 deployment rate is low, measures may be
    necessary to prolong IPv4 address life for the existing business as
    well as for new businesses until networks are IPv6 ready. Some
    regions may have strong needs to secure IPv4 address space for
    translators.

    A globally coordinated policy which addresses all the issues listed
    above to meet the needs for all RIR regions may result in not solving
    issues in any of the regions.

2) LIRs and stakeholders remain unprepared for the situation if they are
    not informed

    If LIRs and the community are uninformed of the exhaustion, their
    services and networks remain unprepared to face the situation at the
    time of exhaustion.

[Objective of the proposal]
This proposal seeks to provide the following solutions to the problems
listed above.

1) RIR community should be able to define their own regional policies on
    how to assign the last piece(s) of allocation block in order to
    address their own regional issues during the exhaustion period.

2) RIRs should provide official projection of the date when LIRs will be
    able to receive the allocations under the current criteria. The
    criteria should remain consistent until this date in order to avoid
    confusion.

[Pros and Cons]
Pros:
+ It allows each RIR community to define a policy on how to distribute
   the last piece(s) of allocations which best matches their situation.

+ It helps LIR better informed of the date when they are able to receive
   allocations from RIRs under the current criteria and prepare for the
   event.

Cons:
+ Concerns could be raised about allocating a fixed size to all RIRs,
   that it artificially fastens the consumption rate of some RIR regions.
   However, its impact is kept to minimum by keeping the allocation size
   to a single /8 which makes merely 3-4 months difference.

+ Concerns could be raised that explicitly allowing regional policies
   will encourage RIR shopping. However, this should not happen if the
   requirements within each region is adequately reflected in each RIR's
   policy through PDP. RIR may also chose to add criteria to prevent LIRs
   from other regions submitting such requests.


Timetable for implementation:
Immediate after all 5 RIRs (and possibly ICANN) ratifies the policy.