Skip to main content

Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space

This policy proposal has been withdrawn
2007-06
State:
Withdrawn
Publication date
Draft document
DRAFT: Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space
Author
  • Roque Gagliano
Proposal Version
1.0 - 30 Jul 2007
All Versions
Withdrawn
01 Mar 2008
State Discription
Authors decided that they want to make a new proposal (see 2008-03)
Working Group
Address Policy Working Group
Proposal type
  • New
Policy term
Permanent
This policy describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, an identical number of IPv4 allocation units (/8s) will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy.

Summary of Proposal:

This policy describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, an identical number of IPv4 allocation units (/8s) will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy.

Rationale:

Arguments Supporting the Proposal

The IANA pool of allocation units of IPv4 addresses (/8s) is decreasing rapidly. A new policy is proposed to replace the current 'on demand' policy in order to bring certainty on how the remaining space will be allocated. This policy eliminates the pressure on the remaining central pool of addresses by allocating equal amount of allocation units (N) to each RIR.

RIRs may be studying slow-landing policies or the possibility to reserve specific address spaces for 'critical infrastructure' or new companies in order to comply with anti-trust regulations in its region. This policy allows each RIR to adopt those policies through its PDP, which is simpler than a global policy discussion process. Each RIR will have the exact information on the amount of address spaces that they will be receiving as a last allocation from the IANA.

The policy is written in such a way that the discussion could be split in two sections: first do we agree on the concept of the policy and second what is the appropriate value for the last allocation units N.

Arguments Opposing the Proposal

Concerns have been raised regarding the address blocks that will be kept at smaller RIRs (particularly LACNIC and AfriNIC) however, at the actual address consumption rate, to open those blocks (10 x /8) would only represent a twelve month extension from the exhaustion date for the bigger RIRs.