Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion
owen at delong.com
Sat Nov 13 10:18:02 UTC 2010
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,
> "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
More information about the RPD