[AfriNIC-rpd] End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs

[Toshiyuki Hosaka]

Dear All,

I am hereby posting the following proposal "End Policy for IANA IPv4
allocations to RIRs". It has already been accepted as a policy proposal
in APNIC and ARIN, and will be discussed at those onsite meetings.

Your comments are highly appreciated.

thanks and best regards.
toshi
---
Toshiyuki HOSAKA
JPNIC


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Toshiyuki HOSAKA

Organisation: JPNIC IPv4 countdown policy team

Policy Affected: The current on-demand global policy for the
                 distribution of IPv4 address space to the Regional
                 Internet Registry (RIR) system.

Date: 29 August 2007

Authors: Akinori MAEMURA,
         Akira NAKAGAWA,
         Izumi OKUTANI,
         Kosuke ITO,
         Kuniaki KONDO,
         Shuji NAKAMURA,
         Susumu SATO,
         Takashi ARANO,
         Tomohiro FUJISAKI,
         Tomoya YOSHIDA,
         Toshiyuki HOSAKA

Incentive: This proposal seeks to provide the solutions to the
           problems in terms of address management which may arise if
           no measures are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.

Policy Proposal Name: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs

Proposal:

 1) Distribute a single /8 to each RIR at the point when new IANA free
    pool hits 5 */8. This date is defined as "IANA Exhaustion Date".

 2) It should be completely left up to each RIR communities to define
    a regional policy on how to distribute the remaining RIR free pool
    to LIRs within their respective regions after "IANA Exhaustion
    Date".

Note 1: It is fine for an RIR to continue operations with the existing
        policy if that is the consensus decision of the respective RIR
        community.

Note 2: Address recovery and re-distribution of recovered address
        space is another important measure for considerations, but
        should be treated as a separate policy proposal from
        distribution of new IANA pool.

 3) RIRs should provide an official projection on IANA Exhaustion Date
    to the community through their website, at their Policy Meetings
    and through any other effective means.


Rationale:

[current problem]

There are two major issues in terms of address management if no
measures are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.

 1) Continue applying a global coordinated policy for distribution of
    the last piece(s) of RIR's unallocated address block does not
    match the reality of the situation in each RIR region.

Issues each RIR region will face during the exhaustion period vary by
region as the level of development of IPv4 and IPv6 are widely
different. As a result, applying a global co-ordinated policy may not
adequately address issues in a certain region while it could be work
for the others.

For example, in a region where late comers desperately need even small
blocks of IPv4 addresses to access to the IPv4 Internet, a policy that
defines the target of allocations/assignments of IPv4 address space to
be late comers would be appropriate in such region. This would allow
availablilty of IPv4 address space for such requirements for more
years.

Another example comes from difference in IPv6 deployment rate. For a
region where IPv6 deployment rate is low, measures may be necessary to
prolong IPv4 address life for the existing business as well as for new
businesses until networks are IPv6 ready. Some regions may have strong
needs to secure IPv4 address space for translators.

A globally coordinated policy which addresses all the issues listed
above to meet the needs for all RIR regions may result in not solving
issues in any of the regions.

 2) LIRs and stakeholders remain unprepared for the situation if they
    are not informed.

If LIRs and the community are uninformed of the exhaustion, their
services and networks remain unprepared to face the situation at the
time of exhaustion.


[Objective of the proposal]

This proposal seeks to provide the following solutions to the problems
listed above.

 1) RIR community should be able to define their own regional policies
    on how to assign the last piece(s) of allocation block in order to
    address their own regional issues during the exhaustion period.

 2) RIRs should provide official projection of the date when LIRs will
    be able to receive the allocations under the current criteria. The
    criteria should remain consistent until this date in order to
    avoid confusion.

[Pros and Cons]

Pros:
 + It allows each RIR community to define a policy on how to
   distribute the last piece(s) of allocations which best matches
   their situation.

 + It helps LIR better informed of the date when they are able to
   receive allocations from RIRs under the current criteria and
   prepare for the event.

Cons:
 + Concerns could be raised about allocating a fixed size to all RIRs,
   that it artificially fastens the consumption rate of some RIR
   regions. However, its impact is kept to minimum by keeping the
   allocation size to a single /8 which makes merely 3-4 months
   difference.

 + Concerns could be raised that explicitly allowing regional policies
   will encourage RIR shopping. However, this should not happen if the
   requirements within each region is adequately reflected in each
   RIR's policy through PDP. RIR may also chose to add criteria to
   prevent LIRs from other regions submitting such requests.

Timetable for implementation:
 Immediate after all 5 RIRs (and possibly ICANN) ratifies the policy.


(end of proposal document)