[AfriNIC-rpd] Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion

[Owen DeLong]

On Nov 12, 2010, at 1:01 PM, SM wrote:

> Hi Steve,
> 
> The authors of the Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion proposal are the same as the contributors listed in Section 9.  I suggest removing the contributors list.
> 
> In Section 1:
> 
>  "Does not differentiate any class of IPv4 address space unless otherwise
>   defined by an RFC."
> 
> Do you mean any such definition in a RFC or is it a specific RFC?
> 
I believe the intent is any RFC, such as 1918, Multicast, Reserved space,
etc.

>  "Disallow transfers of addresses sourced from the Reclamation Pool
>   in the absence of an IPv4 Global Transfer Policy to neutralize
>   transfer process inequities across RIR regions."
> 
> What do you mean by "neutralize transfer process inequities across RIR regions"?
> 
My understanding is this is meant to address the following concern:

APNIC passed a transfer policy which does not require justified need on the part of the
recipient. Absent this provision, such a global policy would allow an entity within APNIC
that has justified need to obtain space, transfer it to a broker, then, obtain more space,
lather, rinse, repeat until such time as all possible space had been transferred to a broker
in the APNIC region to the detriment of all other regions.

There are also other differences in the transfer policies across different regions which
may or may not be a factor.

> In Section 3:
> 
>  'Eligible address space includes addresses that are not designated as
>   "special use" by an IETF RFC or addresses allocated to RIR's unless
>   they are being returned by the RIR that they were orignally allocated to.'
> 
> What do you mean by IETF RFC?  There is a typo for "originally".
> 
My understanding is an RFC produced by the IETF, such as RFC-1918 and
other RFCs which document other forms of special use addresses such as
Multicast, Documentation Prefix, etc.

>  "Any RIR that is formed after the ICANN Board of Directors has ratified
>   this policy is not eligible to utilize this policy to obtain IPv4
>   address space from the IANA."
> 
> Is there a reason for this?
> 
It may be moot now. At the time of writing, I believe there was concern
that the ITU plentipot could deem itself to have created
another "competing" RIR.

> Has this proposal been discussed in other regional policy forums?  If so, would it be possible for you to provide a summary of the discussion?
> 
It was discussed at the ARIN meeting in Atlanta. I do not know what other RIRs have discussed
it yet. I'll leave it to the authors to respond to this.

> The projected IANA Unallocated Address Pool Exhaustion date is currently March 12, 2011.
> 
I'm pretty sure it will be earlier than that. My best guess is January, 2011, but, we might even see
December, 2010.

Owen