[address-policy-wg] 2010-05 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for IPv4 Allocation by the IANA post exhaustion)

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 11:12, Tore Anderson
<tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
> * http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-05.html
>
>> The reclamation pool will initially contain any fragments that may
>> be left over in IANA inventory.
>
> I assume these fragments are the so-called «VARIOUS» blocks?  These,
> that is:  <http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4-stats/prefixes_various_pool.txt>?
>
>> The Reclamation Pool will be divided on CIDR boundaries and
>> distributed evenly to all eligible RIRs.
> [...]
>> [...] an RIR will become eligible to request address space from the IANA
>> Reclamation Pool [...]
>
> These two statements appear to me to contradict each other.  The first
> seems to imply a push-based model, where the Reclamation Pool (RP) is
> divided in five equally large chunks and dealt out to the RIRs at the
> same time, in a manner very similar to the procedure in 2008-03.
>
> The second seems to imply a pull model, much like how the IANA today
> allocates /8s to the RIRs upon request.  (If so, how much can a RIR
> allocate at a time?  18 months worth of consumption, like today?)
>
> Which is it?

It is a pull model with equal distribution. The key term in the
first statement is "*eligible* RIRs." If three RIRs have exhausted
their IPv4 address space, they all make that announcement and the
subsequent request to the IANA. They then all receive one third of the
Reclamation Pool (divided on CIDR boundaries).

> And if it is the latter, I fail to see how it will be distributed
> «evenly».  It's unrealistic to assume that all RIRs will deplete at the
> same time.  Isn't it then more likely that the first RIR(s) to deplete
> their inventory (and thus activate the RP) will burn through all of the
> RP long before the last RIR depletes its inventory and gets eligible for
> making use of it?

The intent is to distribute the space evenly amongst all RIRs
with need, hence the eligibility requirement. Consider a scenario
where three RIRs have exhausted their IPv4 address space and the IANA
has nothing to replenish them with. They all declare exhaustion and
make their request to IANA. Then someone returns IPv4 space to the
IANA. That space would be carved into three blocks and distributed
evenly to all three exhausted RIRs. Without this policy, the IANA
would have no way to distribute that space at all.

> Finally there's proposal 2010-02 ...  If that one is accepted as
> currently prosposed, RIPE won't be eligible to receive anything from the
> RP until there's 16384 LIRs in the region who have all received an IPv6
> allocation and a /22 from the last IPv4 /8.  At that point, I'm not sure
> if anybody really cares about what happens to the remaining IPv4 space,
> especially as none of the 16384 LIRs that have already received their
> /22 from the last /8 can come back for more anyway.
>
> Should the space set aside for the implementation of 2010-02 (and
> similar policies in the other regions) be disregarded when determining
> when a RIR has exhausted its inventory?  That is, a timeline like the
> following:
>
> 1) Receive last /8 from the IANA - set aside for 2010-02
> 2) Allocate/assign remaining inventory to LIRs according to ripe-492
> 3) Receive 1/5 (or: continuously allocate until no longer possible) from
> the IANA RP.  Allocate/assign to LIRs according to ripe-492
> 4) Implement 2010-02 (using the /8 set aside in step #1)

The authors of this proposal (I included) will take this
suggestion into consideration. Our largest concern is that this may
create a loophole by which an RIR could stockpile IPv4 addresses to
the disadvantage of the other regions.

Cheers,
~Chris

>
> Best regards,
> --
> Tore Anderson
> Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
>
>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org