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

[Andrew Alston]

Hi McTim!

Just wanted to say as well, please don't consider my response an attack on
those who take the effort to attempt to create useful policies.  The effort
is appreciated, and I do believe that there is a need for a policy about
reclamation of IP space.  I just differ in views about if this could apply
to holders of legacy space, and believe that the policy needs firming up in
several areas.

The effort is appreciated though :)

Andrew



On 2011/02/09 8:08 PM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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!
>