[AfriNIC-rpd] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing Policy

[McTim]

Hi,

Douglas thanks for putting so much work into this proposal.

Here are my thoughts inline (many of them just nits):

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Vincent Ngundi <vincent at kenic.or.ke> wrote:
> #### IPv4 Soft Landing Policy ####
>
> Name:           IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> Organization:   Sitronics Telecom Solutions - Uganda
> Version:        Draft
> Date:           05 Jan 2009
> Status:
> Authors:        Douglas Onyango
>
>
> Incentive
> ---------
>
> In order to ensure a smooth transition to IPv6 from IPv4, its necessary that
> the life span of IPv4 be sustained as much as possible.

Some think that the opposite is true.  In any case, perhaps this should read:

In order to ensure a flexible transition to IPv6 from IPv4, the
lifespan of IPv4 can be increased in order to give network operators
more time to make the transition.

This document
> proposes a strategy for allocation and maintenance of the final
 block of /8
> IPv4 assignment from IANA.
>
> Background
> ----------
>
> Following the much anticipated IPv4 pool exhaustion, a global policy,
> “Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space”,
> is being developed that will ensure that IANA reserves one (1) IPv4 /8
> address block for each RIR. Details of the Global Policy for the Allocation
> of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space can be found at:
> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v4gp200802.html. This policy
> (IPv4 Soft Landing) shall only become applicable if the “Global Policy for
> the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space” is ratified.

you mean globally ratified, right? then let's make that clear.

>
> AfriNIC as an RIR is therefore charged with the responsibility of seeing to
> it that this last block is used in the best way possible.

Well, AfriNIC is charged with the stewardship of the IP space, i.e.,
giving it out in accordance with the policies set by it's community.

This =! the "best possible way" (that is always open to interpretation).

This is the
> purpose of this document.
>
> Policy Documents to be affected:
>
> (a) IPv4 Allocation Policy
> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v4200407-000.htm
>
> (b) Proposal to Change the Allocation & Assignment Period to 12 months
> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-af200611.htm
>
> Definitions
> -----------
>
> (a) Local Internet Registry (LIR)
> A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an Internet Registry (IR) that receives
> allocations from an RIR and primarily sub-allocates or assigns address space
> to 'end-users'. LIRs are generally ISPs. Their customers are other ISPs and
> possibly end-users.

I would delete the above as slightly redundant, and possibly
contradicting the previous sentence.

 LIRs must be members of an RIR like AfriNIC; which
> serves the Africa Region and part of the Indian Ocean (Comoros, Madagascar,
> Mauritius, Seychelles).

I would rather say:

LIRs must be members of AfriNIC.

It's more specific.

>
> (b) Existing LIR’s
> An existing LIR is defined as being an organization that has already been
> assigned or allocated IPv4 address space by AfriNIC
>
> (c) New LIR’s
> A new LIR is defined as being an organization which has recently become a
> member of AfriNIC but has yet to be assigned or allocated any IPv4 address
> space.
>
> (d) Critical Infrastructure Provider:
> A critical infrastructure provider is defined as the Root Servers operator,
> generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registry Operator, country code Top Level
> Domain (ccTLD) Registry Operator, internationalized Domain Names (iDN)
> Registry operator, or Internet Exchange Point operator.

I have always been opposed to g and ccTLD ops as being included in
this list of what is critical.  If ICANN does add thousands of new
gTLDs, not to mention the many iDNs, that reserved /16 you mention
below will be gone quickly.

If the community wants to do this, perhaps it should be extended to
Tier 0/1 ENUM ops as well.

>
> Summary
> -------
>
> This proposal describes how AfriNIC shall allocate and manage IPv4 resources
> from the last /8 block of IPv4 address allocated by IANA at the time of
> total depletion of the IANA IPv4 address free pool.
>
> (i) Current Phase:
> During this phase, AfriNIC will continue allocating IPv4 addresses to the
> LIR’s using the current allocation policy
> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v4200407-000.htm. This phase will
> continue until a request for IPv4 address space from any LIR to AfriNIC
> either cannot be fulfilled with the IPv4 address space available in the
> AfriNIC pool (with the exception of the last allocated /8 address block from
> IANA) or can be fulfilled but leaving the AfriNIC IPv4 address pool empty
> (with the exception of the last allocated /8 address block from IANA).
>
> This will be the last IPv4 address space request that AfriNIC will accept
> from any LIR and at this point, the next phase of the process (Exhaustion
> Phase) will be initiated.
>

Can we just say that "AfriNIC will declare that the Exhaustion Phase
has begun at this point."


> (ii) Exhaustion Phase:
> During the exhaustion phase, an interim allocation and assignment policy for
> the last /8 IPv4 address block will be available to AfriNIC as described
> below:

It's not interim is it?

> a)    Instead of the /22 block (1024) addresses allocated in the current
> policy, a /23 block (512) addresses will be assigned to any LIR that
> requests for IPv4 resources.

Is that the minimum allocation size? If so, the proposal should say that.

Are you proposing a maximum allocation size here?

> b)    The LIR will be required to show an IPv6 adoption plan that should be
> implemented within 8 months. AfriNIC shall ratify the IPv6 adoption plan.
>

I think this is very intrusive.  An RIR should have NO input at all on
which protocol its members want to use, let alone veto power over
their transition plan.

> Upon ratification of the IPv6 adoption plan (previous paragraph), AfriNIC
> shall allocate an IPv6 address block in compliance with the current IPv6
> allocation policy
> (http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm) to the LIR (in
> case it doesn’t have any). This shall be done together with the /23 IPv4
> address space allocation; according to the allocation criteria described
> below.
>

We should be giving Ipv6 away like candy, not making people jump thru
hoops to get IPv6.


> As proposed above, the current allocation and assignment period of 12 months
> shall be changed to 8 months. This will help to ensure minimal wastage of
> resources that could probably lay unused while other LIR’s suffer from
> deficiency.

This just means that folk will come back for more IPv4 more often, no?

>
> Allocation Criteria
> -------------------
>
> Each LIR should receive address space in accordance with the minimum
> allocation size in effect at time of the request. If AfriNIC’s minimum
> allocation size were to change in future, the allocation made under this
> policy (/23) should also be changed accordingly.

as above, does this proposal mandate a maximum or minumum (or is it
both (one size fits all)?

>
> a) Existing LIR’s
>
> Upon application, an Existing LIR may receive only a single IPv4 allocation
> at the minimum allocation size even if their needs justify a larger
> allocation.

My question has been answered never mind ;-)

The LIR will be required to show an IPv6 adoption plan that
> should be implemented within 8 months. AfriNIC shall ratify the IPv6
> adoption plan. At the time of the IPv4 allocation, AfriNIC shall also
> allocate an IPv6 address block in compliance with the current IPv6
> allocation policy
> (http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm) to the LIR.

This seems to be redundant to me.

>
> In order to receive additional IPv4 allocations, the Existing LIR must start
> using the allocated IPv6 address block first, according to the plan ratified
> by AfriNIC. (In case of no IPv6 upstream provider, this should be clarified
> to the AfriNIC IP analyst, and the same evaluated by AfriNIC).
>

What does the word "using" mean in the above?  Deploying on their
network or announcing to the world (or both)?

> Each Existing LIR may apply for and receive this allocation once they meet
> the criteria to receive IPv4 address space according to the current
> allocation policy in effect at the time.
>
> This allocation ensures that each Existing LIR receives routable

NO RIR ever guarantees routability, I think this word needs to be deleted.

 IPv4
> addresses that they can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services during the
> transition phase to IPv6.
>
> b) New LIR’s
>
> Each New LIR will receive IPv4 addresses which they can use for supporting
> legacy IPv4 services to ensure their full presence on the IPv4 Internet
> during the transition to IPv6. The following will apply:
>
> Upon application, a New LIR may receive a maximum of four (4) address blocks
> according to the minimum allocation size in effect at time of allocation in
> the AfriNIC region. However, the /23 address blocks shall be issued one at a
> time. If AfriNIC’s minimum allocation size were to change in future, the
> allocation made under this policy (/23) should also be changed accordingly.
> The LIR will be required to show an IPv6 adoption plan that should be
> implemented within 8 months. AfriNIC shall ratify the IPv6 adoption plan. At
> the time of the IPv4 allocation, AfriNIC shall also allocate an IPv6 address
> block in compliance with the current IPv6 allocation policy
> (http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm) to the LIR.

isn't this also redundant.

>
> In order to receive additional IPv4 allocations, the New LIR should start
> using the allocated IPv6 address block first, according to the plan ratified
> by AfriNIC. (In case of no IPv6 upstream provider this should be clarified
> to the AfriNIC IP analyst, and the same evaluated by AfriNIC).
>
> New LIRs may apply for and receive this allocation once they meet the
> criteria to receive IPv4 address space according to the policy in effect at
> the time.
>
> IPv4 Address Space Reserve
> --------------------------
>
> A /16 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the last /8 pool. This
> /16 IPv4 address block should be preserved by AfriNIC for some future uses,
> as yet unforeseen. The Internet is erratic

It is actually quite stable ;-), can we say innovative?


 and we cannot predict with
> certainty what might happen. Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in
> reserve, just in case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4
> addresses.
>
> Further, assignments to Critical Infrastructure Providers will be done from
> this /16 IPv4 address block in /24 address blocks.

NO! If you are going to reserve a /16, then reserve it.  Allowing
Critical Infrastructure Providers to get it will ensure that it goes
within a few years (or months).


>
> In the event that this /16 IPv4 address block remains unused by the time the
> remaining /8 address space covered by this policy has been allocated to
> LIRs, it returns to the pool to be distributed in compliance with this
> policy.

I would rather it be "reserved" even after exhaustion.

Apologies for the length of my submission, but this proposal seems to
do 4 main things:

1. Create a one size fits all minimum/maximum allocation size (BTW, it
should be limited to PA allocations and not End-User assignments, no?)

2. Change the assignment period from 1 year to 8 months (we just went
down from 2 years to 1 recently).  Perhaps staff can give us some data
about the previous change and its impact on the frequency of
additional IPv4 allocation requests.  In other words, when we went
from 2 years to 1, did that mean that people just came back more often
for additional allocs?  What I mean is, did we increase our burn rate
of IPv4 becasue of that change?

3. Force people into using IPv6, which may entail significant costs.
We may not have the "legal power" to force this kind of change.

4. Reserve a /16 for those deemed "critical". I am sure that everybody
reading this post thinks their network is pretty darn "critical" ;-)

So what we are trying to do is to lengthen the runout period AND force
folk to use IPv6?  Is that a good summary?  If so, I can't say i like
this proposal as it stands.

I would rather use the carrot than the stick, but here's a "stick"
that may be helpful.

If we specify in a policy that AfriNIC must see documentation on the
purchase or lease of equipment that has the interfaces to be numbered,
that might force people to rethink their needs request.

In other words, if you tell a hostmaster that you need 2048 IPs, you
should have the paper work for 2000
CPEs/routers/servers/radios/whatever that those numbers will be
deployed on.  Just a radical thought.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
http://stateoftheinternetin.ug