[address-policy-wg] 2007-06: New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocationof the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)

On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 16:35 -0300, Roque Gagliano wrote:
> Hi, here my comments.
> Roque
> 
> > The proposal claims to create "certainty on how the remaining space will
> > be allocated". 
> > 
> > To me it seems the only advantage is to the RIRs with a slow burn-rate
> > who may get space to allocate for 1-2 years longer than the big RIRs.
> > It's not obvious that this makes it easier to predict the exact date of
> > depletion -- for anyone. Nor does it anything to prevent a run on the
> > remaining resources.
> 
> It does in the sense that each RIR will know the size of their last
> allocation.

> > How can/do you prevent registry-shopping in the period after the first
> > RIRs run out of addresses? 
> > 
> we cant. not just registry shopping but also a secondary market. However
> when RIRs are involved there are certain policies in place. 
> 
> > To avoid a run between the RIRs to get the last few /8s it might be an
> > idea to hand out at least one /8 to each RIR in the last round.
> 
> That is what we are proposing setting N=1. The issue is that as a global
> policy it needs to be approved by all the RIR, and that takes at least
> 18 months. If we reach consensus that allocating the last /8s to each
> RIR make sense, we just need to discuss how big the size of that last
> allocation should be. We proposed 5x/8, but many people finds that too
> big. what about N=2 or 3?
> 

The amount of trouble at the time of depletion may turn out to be
proportional to N. I.e. the smaller the better.

If we are to deviate from the principle of "documented need", I believe
it is better to define a last pool of /8s (e.g. 15) that is to be split
among the RIRs according to their consumption. Some may get 5 /8s,
others only 1, but they'll run out at about the same time. The RIRs
provide data wrt their consumption to the NRO which in turn advise
IANA/ICANN when it is time to make the final allocation.


> > 
> > Although impossible, I belive the best would be if all RIRs run out at
> > the exact same time which is the opposite of what the suggested policy
> > aim to achieve.
> 
> This policy is a global policy only affects how IANA allocates addresses to the RIRs, it does not study each RIR individually. Some RIR allocates a minimum of a /20, 
> other a /22, etc.

The behaviour of individual RIRs is irrelevant unless IANA aspire to
dictate RIR policies. If you really want more restrictive policies
globally why don't you suggest such directly to each RIR.


> I believe that if we approved this policy each RIR
> could discussed more conservative policies and hopefully the RIR pool
> will never run out (check the "slow landing" proposal at ARIN as an
> example).

Suggestions like the "soft landing" proposal in ARIN amount to little
more than wishful thinking. Policy-changes may limit the number of
smaller blocks and thus affect routing-table-growth. The volume of
address-consumption OTOH is tied to growth in the broadband-market on
which changes to allocation policies have minimal effect -- unless you
go as far as to introduce some form of rationing.


//per