[address-policy-wg] 2011-01 Review Period extended until 25 August 2011 (Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 mechanisms by the IANA)

João Damas wrote:

> IMHO[1] I think this better that what we have now in that it allows us
> to make use of the last bits of address space and any that may become
> available later on.

I agree, and thus I support the proposed policy.

> Probably not going to make a huge difference in extending IPv4's life
> but sure stops people complaining about the IANA holding numbers that
> could be put to use on the Internet.

Checking the text again, I do see some aspects that may be ambiguous and/or
require clarification:


Section 1.0, after bullet point 2,
<quote>
The Recovered IPv4 Pool will stay inactive until the first RIR has less than
a total of a /9 in its inventory of IPv4 address space.
</quote>

As the different regions do have, or are still discussing, various (micro-)policies
to reserve blocks or to set aside blocks for specific purposes, the term "inventory"
either needs clarification/definition or there should be an explanation which
part(s) of the RIR's IPv4 address space is considered to belong to the "inventory".

My personal proposal would be to clearly state that *all* currently unused space
in an RIR is considered its "inventory".

As an aside, and given the fact that there is no specification about the fate of
returned address blocks within a Region, what is expected to happen, when and if
no RIR is below the /9 threshold any longer? Will the RIP (Recovered IPv4 Pool :-) )
be declared inactive again, or not? I do understand that this is not very likely.


Regarding timelines:

It is not clear to me, whether the 1st round of redistribution happens "immediately"
after declaring the RIP active, and thereafter will be synched to the March1/Sept1
schedule? Alternatively, the 1st round may be executed at the next scheduled date.

My personal preference here would be to act "immediately" and then take up the
schedule, with the effect of potentially not having anything to dish out for the
next round(s) and thus skip the next scheduled date(s) .

However, this approach may run against the intention(?) of proposing a fixed 6m
schedule (in order to accumulate a reasonably big RIP?).

Maybe the authors could explain the rationale for the particular schedule?

> As a matter of local implementation, if this policy is adopted, I would like to
> request that the RIPE NCC issue public statements to its members each time this
> policy is exercised, whether it gets new addresses in the period or not.

Regarding the Impact Analysis:

Is there any exisiting or proposed policy in our region that would be impacted
or even invalidated by this proposal becoming Global Policy?

> Joao
> 
> [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/IMHO

Thanks for the [1] :-) ,
Wilfried.

> On 28 Jul 2011, at 12:31, Emilio Madaio wrote:
> 
> 
>>Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>The Review Period for the proposal 2011-01 has been extended until 25
>>August 2011.
>>
>>
>>You can find the full proposal at:
>>
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01
>>
>>
>>We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments
>>to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Emilio Madaio
>>Policy Development Officer
>>RIPE NCC