[AfriNIC-rpd] Value of N for Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space

[McTim]

On 10/2/07, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've been having a brief look at the data on potaroo.net trying to figure
> out in my mind what a sane value for N would be when considering the data
> actually available with regards to current allocation trends.
>
> I must admit, having looked at that data I'm probably even more uncertain
> now than I was before, I do however believe that setting N to either 1 or 2
> could cause problems for certain regions.

Absolutely, however the question in my mind is: Will adopting this policy
(with any value of N) be LESS problematic than having no policy, or
less problematic than Soft Landing.

>
> If I'm reading the data correctly, and if I'm not I'm open to correction,
> the current allocation rates show that RIPE is allocating at a rate of
> between 4 and 5 /8s per year, APNIC is sitting at between 4.5 and 5.5, ARIN
> is sitting at between 1 and 2 per year, LACNIC seems to be sitting at
> between 1 and 1.5 and AFRINIC is sitting between 0.3 and 0.35 per year.
>
> Now, if N = 1 AFRINIC and LACNIC are relatively ok, we have some time to
> play with to give people SOME time to adjust to the fact that there is now
> probably a soft landing policy in place etc etc.  APNIC and RIPE could have
> as little as 2 months, maybe less (in June, RIPE NCC allocated 0.75 /8s), I
> see this as being relatively problematic for them!

Agreed, but at least it's a guarantee of getting something to allocate/assign.

>
> Its kind of hard to model, because of how variable the allocation is, and
> how much it fluctuates, but I'm leaning towards believing that if this
> policy is to be sensible, it needs to allocate the remaining space such that
> the biggest RIR has at least 6 months at time of implementation of policy.
>
> Now, considering the growth in allocation rates of late, and due to the fact
> that it is entirely possible that there is an explosion in demand once the
> space depletes to these levels, I'd have to say that N should be at least 3,
> if not 4.
>
> I believe very strongly that when AfriNIC debates the value of N in this, we
> need to be very very careful to take the global view into account on this,
> we cannot debate this from the perspective of purely African merits,

Well, we can (we have?), but as it's a global policy proposal we
SHOULD NOT.  ARIN is about to take up this issue at their meeting very
soon.  I am guessing that they might reach consensus on "Soft
Landing".  To my reading of the ARIN mailing list, it seems they will
reject the policy our community has reached consensus on.

So if one or 2 regions go for global policy "A" and others go for "B",
what happens?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim