[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Proposal: Reclamation of allocated but unrouted IPv4 addresses.

[McTim]

Hi,

I think it is great that you have the energy and enthusiasm to make
proposals, I wish more of us were willing to author them (I am guilty
of not writing any i must admit).  Am very glad to see that we have
some new proposals to discuss in Dar.

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:54 PM,  <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com> wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> At 09:53 AM 2/8/2011, Jackson Muthili wrote:
>>
>> I would like to submit another proposal below.
>
> Your proposal is being forwarded to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing
> list (rpd at afrinic.net) for discussion.  We will contact you about the
> identifier for your proposal once the template for proposals and the
> implementation details of the current Policy Development Process has been to
> be finalized.
>
> Regards,
> Alan Barrett and S. Moonesamy
> Interim co-chairs, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group
>
>> Draft Policy Name: Reclamation of allocated but unrouted IPv4 addresses.
>> Author: Jackson Muthili |
>> <mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>jacksonmuthi at gmail.com | IP Consultant
>> Submission Date: February 8th 2011
>>
>> 1.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal
>>
>> With the depletion of ICANN/IANA pool

I think you have to say "With the recent depletion of....." ;-)


relatively sooner than later, and
>> the AfriNIC pool, ISPs will soon be faced with the tough reality of IPv4
>> address scarcity. Some studies indicate that there is a lot of IPv4 that has
>> been allocated but is not used or routed. This proposal attempts to find a
>> way to free this space so that it can be issued to ISPs that have a real use
>> for it.
>>
>> 2.0 The Proposal
>>
>> The following will apply to all IPv4 issued after before

you mean after AND before?


policy is
>> implemented:
>>
>> 2.1 IPv4 distributed by AfriNIC to the ISP must be seen on the routing
>> table within 90 days of getting the addresses.

Is routing the same as "use"? While I understand we have no better way
to measure usage (except what is registered in the Db), if ISP A gets
an allocation and routes it all, they may not use it all for several
years.

I would rather have registration in the Db as an indicator of usage.
This would give the benefit of ensuring that IP space allocated gets
properly assigned in the Db, and not just on a spreadsheet at the ISP.



>> 2.2 AfriNIC must issue three 7-day interval warnings to the ISP that is in
>> violation of 2.1 after the 90th day of getting the IPv4.
>> 2.3 AfriNIC must regain the IPv4 from the ISP 7 days after the last
>> warning. The IPv4 can be given to another ISP by AfriNIC when appropriate.
>>
>> The following will apply to all IPv4 issued after the policy is
>> implemented:
>>
>> 2.4 IPv4 distributed by AfriNIC to the ISP must be seen on the routing
>> table within 30 days of getting the addresses.
>> 2.5 AfriNIC must issue two 7-day interval warnings to the member that is
>> in violation of 2.4 after the 30th day of getting the IPv4.
>> 2.6 AfriNIC must regain the IPv4 from the ISP 7 days after the last
>> warning. The IPv4 can be given to another ISP by AfriNIC when appropriate.
>>
>> 3.0 Summary
>>
>> While this proposal will not significantly extend the lifetime of IPv4, it
>> will ensure that unused IPv4 is righfully utilized

I think this is the key phrase in the policy proposal.

What is "rightfully utilized"?  I think that globally, folk have
agreed that Internetworks have need for IP space that will/should
never be globally routed.

I agree with Andrew that "there are several reasons to have so called
"live" (non-rfc1918) space that is not announced in the routing tables
but is actively in use."  I'm not yet ready to abandon this type of
need.

I would be happy to co-author a policy proposal with you on DB
registration enforcement and reclamation in cases of continued
non-compliance if you would like!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel