Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 33, Issue 2
Douglas Onyango
ondouglas at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 12 19:03:03 UTC 2009
Hi all,
I appreciate your input to the proposal and i also agree on most of the points you raise - just a few comments here.
On the point of giving out v6 addresses like candy, i want to say i am in full agreement, mark that there is a whole policy that is dedicated to v6 allocations and everyone interested i believe is being served well here.
On the issue of shortening the allocation periods, rationale was that, when LIR's requisition address space, its easier to justify much bigger chuncks for the 12months even when they will not be used, so solution is is do 6 months and then we can include some threshold say 90% usage (which usage we shall need help on effective measuring both here and in other places in the proposal where its mentioned).
On the issue raised by McTim, i think its an interesting one that may trigger a salvo of discussion, but IMHO, if we have the resources and we can reserve what is sufficient to get us going for another maybe 5 years, i don't see the the evil in availing the space to someone outside the region who needs it. Especially if there is something in it for us.
Regards,
Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329
If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.
--- On Thu, 1/8/09, rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:
From: rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net>
Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 33, Issue 2
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 12:41 PM
Send rpd mailing list submissions to
rpd at afrinic.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rpd-request at afrinic.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
rpd-owner at afrinic.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing Policy (Vincent Ngundi)
2. Re: Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing Policy (McTim)
3. Re: Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing Policy (Mark J Elkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:37:26 +0300
From: Vincent Ngundi <vincent at kenic.or.ke>
Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
To: AfriNIC RPD ML <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <C58A2856.F49%vincent at kenic.or.ke>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
The AfriNIC PDP-MG received the following policy proposal on the 6th of
January 2009. In accordance with the AfriNIC Policy Development Process, the
proposal is being posted to the AfriNIC Resource Policy Discuss (RPD)
Mailing List. The proposal will also be placed on the AfriNIC website as a
policy proposal under discussion.
In line with the AfriNIC PDP, the AfriNIC community is now invited to review
and discuss this policy.
The AfriNIC Policy Development Process can be found at:
http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-pdp200707.htm
AfriNIC Mailing Lists subscription information can be found at:
http://www.afrinic.net/mailinglist.htm
Regards,
Vincent Ngundi
Chair, PDP-MG
#### 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. 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.
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. 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. LIRs must be members of an RIR like AfriNIC; which
serves the Africa Region and part of the Indian Ocean (Comoros, Madagascar,
Mauritius, Seychelles).
(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.
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.
(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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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).
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 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.
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 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.
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.
#### /IPv4 Soft Landing Policy ####
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:54:12 +0300
From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
To: "AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List" <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID:
<f65fb55e0901071354g473f9101xb7946667e43091ea at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:09:09 +0200
From: Mark J Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <4965C2B5.2090105 at posix.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
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,
>> “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).
>
>
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’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.
>
>
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’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.
>
>
>
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’s
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’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 ;-)
>
>
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’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.
>
>
--
. . ___. .__ 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
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
End of rpd Digest, Vol 33, Issue 2
**********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090112/2bdb8b45/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list