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

Hi Wilfried,
At 02:49 09-08-2011, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
>Checking the text again, I do see some aspects that may be ambiguous and/or
>require clarification:

Please note that the status of GPP-IPv4-2011 in other regions is as follows:

AfriNIC: In Last Call
APNIC: Endorsed by APNIC EC
ARIN: To be discussed at its next Public Policy Meeting
LACNIC: In last comments period

>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".

The intent is to cover IPv4 address space that is not allocated or 
assigned, including any address blocks that have been set aside for 
specific purposes.

>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.

The objective is to keep the proposal simple.  As such, unlikely 
events are not taken into account.

>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?).

There is a fixed six month schedule.

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

That particular schedule was proposed and nobody objected to it.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy