[address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"

Dear Marco,

Yes, there are some proposals in other regions that seem to be similar  
to this one.

Note that the similarity is often in the *intentions* rather than the  
detailed criteria they are proposing as of a solution to the foreseen  
problem.

Below, please find a brief overview of these proposals:

-o-

In ARIN, there is a proposal called "Depleted IPv4 reserves".
It is proposing to set a limit to be applied to all IPv4 address  
requests when ARIN's reserve of unallocated IPv4 address space drops  
below an equivalent of /9. By then, the address space that an  
organisation can receive will be limited to a single /20 within a six  
month period.

This is currently under discussion and you can find further details at:

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_2.html

-o-

In APNIC, they have discussed two proposals in their last meeting back  
in February. One of them was to change the timeframe APNIC uses to  
make IPv4 allocations to meet LIRs' needs from twelve months to six  
months. The other was to set a maximum APNIC allocation size, by  
gradually decrease the maximum allocation size based on the remaining  
number of /8s in the IANA free pool.

Both of these proposals were abandoned after APNIC 27, following a  
lack of community support.
You can still find their details at:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-063-v002.html
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-070-v001.html

-o-

LACNIC has reached consensus back in 2008 on a proposal called  
"Special IPv4 Allocations/Assignments Reserved for New Members".  
Accordingly when IANA's pool of IPv4 addresses is exhausted and LACNIC  
has a /12 left in their pool, only new members will receive address  
space from LACNIC. This space will be a /24 as the minimum and a /22  
as the maximum. They have further detailed criteria and you can see  
them at:

http://lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2008-04-propuesta-en.pdf


I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Filiz Yilmaz
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC


On Apr 7, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This seems indeed fair and I therefor support this proposal. I have  
> one question though, are there similair proposals out there in other  
> regions ?
>
> Groet,
>
> MarcoH
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090407/4b91e6a0/attachment.html>