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

Thu Jan 8 09:09:09 UTC 2009

Now that the hard works been done - I'd like to add my thoughts.....

McTim wrote:
> 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
>   
I'd prefer this to read "from IPv4 to IPv6".
> lifespan of IPv4 can be increased in order to give network operators
> more time to make the transition.
>
>   
I like that! - "sustaining IPv4" is the wrong goal.
> 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,
>> ‚ÄúGlobal Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space‚Äù,
>> 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 ‚ÄúGlobal Policy for
>> the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space‚Äù 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).
>
>   

Remember - although there is a (yet to be ratified) global policy for 
allocation the last few blocks to RIR's - each RIR will probably have 
quite different
or unique methods of using that block. The two should not be confused.

> 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‚Äôs
>> An existing LIR is defined as being an organization that has already been
>> assigned or allocated IPv4 address space by AfriNIC
>>
>> (c) New LIR‚Äôs
>> 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‚Äôs 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.
>
>   

At this stage of the game - if a new RIR does not have plans for IPv6 
adoption - they are not going to be around for very long.
I think its correct for AfriNIC to insist on some sort of IPv6 plan - 
but nothing too harsh.
Perhaps the  IPv4 allocations to new RIR's have to be done in parallel 
with an IPv6 allocation - unless of course the new RIR already has IPv6 
addresses.
>> 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‚Äôt 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.
>
>
>   

I agree with the sentiment.

>> 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‚Äôs suffer from
>> deficiency.
>>     
>
> This just means that folk will come back for more IPv4 more often, no?
>
>   
I don't think we need this change to 8 months.
>> Allocation Criteria
>> -------------------
>>
>> Each LIR should receive address space in accordance with the minimum
>> allocation size in effect at time of the request. If AfriNIC‚Äôs 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‚Äôs
>>
>> 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 ;-)
>
>   

Not sure I like this. We use IPv4 resources very slowly. A rough 
calculation suggests we'll have IPv4 resources well after other parts of the
world are depleted. Because of this - I believe that:-

1 - only treat the last /10 in a special manner - ie - keep existing 
rules for the first 3/4's of the last block - and be then very careful 
with the last 1/4 of the block.
2 - In the last 1/4 of the block - only give addresses to people without 
any existing IPv4 resources - or perhaps with less than /22.
This implies that if you have a /22 or more - you will never be 
allocated any IPv4 resources again.
3 - We need to be very careful who gets these resources - especially 
from now.

What I mean from this is - currently - you just need to be an AfriNIC 
member to get AfriNIC resources.
I'd like a statement that says:

AfriNIC  resources are for the AfriNIC geographical region
No more than 10% (or similar) of these resources can be used outside of 
the AfriNIC region.

ie - AT&T (or other international player) can come and be an AfriNIC 
member and acquire resources - but can only really use them in the 
AfriNIC region.

> 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)?
>
>   
"no IPv6 upstream provider" is a red herring - one can always tunnel or 
similar.
>> 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‚Äôs
>>
>> 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‚Äôs 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.
>
>   

-- 
  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496