[rpd] Some thoughts, and some actions required

[Scott Leibrand]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Scott,
> On 29 January 2016 at 04:28, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >I don't have a strong opinion on how that should be
> > done: I'm just pointing out that it would be good to ensure some sort of
> > soft landing free pool remains for several more years to ensure IPv4
> space
> > is still available for new entrants until the burden of interconnecting
> the
> > legacy IPv4 Internet to the IPv6 Internet switches from IPv6-only to
> > IPv4-only networks.
>
> I believe this is why we have the /12 reserved.
>

Yep.  I was referring to Andrew's assessment that:

Due to the fact that the current soft landing policy still allows extremely
> large allocations, this will not significantly slow down the allocation
> rates, and if anything, moving into soft landing may well spur more people
> into action and applications, which could actually INCREASE the rate of
> allocation.  Should the allocation rate remain unchanged, Africa is out of
> space by late March/Beginning April 2017.


If you close the loopholes or otherwise adjust the soft landing policy so
that the allocation rate under soft landing policy slows down
significantly, then I think that addresses the concern.  And if it turns
out that your adjustments are insufficient, then you might still be able to
create a smaller IPv6 transition pool using the IANA returned space AfriNIC
will receive over subsequent months.

-Scott


>
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Scott,
> >> In this case, I think adding v6 deployment as an eligibility
> >> requirement should suffice?
> >> Whether it's on the first allocation/assignment or on subsequent ones
> >> can be discussed.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> On 29 January 2016 at 04:11, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > There are certain needs for IPv4 space that only require uniqueness,
> but
> >> > not
> >> > routability.  For example, router IDs often need to be unique IPv4
> >> > addresses
> >> > (even when only routing IPv6), but they don't need to be announced to
> >> > anyone.  To date, most requests under 4.10 have been for /24s, and
> ARIN
> >> > considers "we'd like to route this block on the Internet" to be valid
> >> > justification for needing a /24, so the policy allowing (but not
> >> > requiring)
> >> > smaller allocations doesn't do any harm.  ARIN already has to do
> >> > non-classful rDNS delegation for blocks >/24, so I don't think the
> >> > burden
> >> > there (if people actually choose to request smaller blocks) will be
> all
> >> > that
> >> > significant.
> >> >
> >> > I am not necessarily suggesting reserving *more* space: if you'd
> prefer
> >> > you
> >> > could tighten up the eligibility requirements on some of the
> >> > already-reserved space.  I am only suggesting that completely
> exhausting
> >> > the
> >> > AfriNIC IPv4 free pool, with no space left to allocate to new entrants
> >> > for
> >> > any reason, would put African companies at a disadvantage to new
> >> > entrants in
> >> > other regions, who all have some sort of space reserved for that
> >> > purpose.
> >> >
> >> > -Scott
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Scott,
> >> >> On 28 January 2016 at 23:25, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > I would also suggest that at the very least the AfriNIC community
> >> >> > consider
> >> >> > an addition to the soft-landing policy that sets aside an IPv4
> block
> >> >> > dedicated to facilitating IPv6 deployment, by making IPv4 addresses
> >> >> > available for IPv6 translation technologies, dual stack DNS
> servers,
> >> >> > etc.
> >> >> > Something like https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10 could
> be
> >> >> > implemented either by carving out a pool out of AfriNIC's existing
> >> >> > inventory, or by dedicating space newly redistributed from IANA for
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > purpose.  Alternately, a RIPE/APNIC style "one block per network"
> >> >> > soft
> >> >> > landing policy would accomplish a similar objective: making sure
> that
> >> >> > future
> >> >> > new entrants can continue to receive enough IPv4 addresses to talk
> to
> >> >> > the
> >> >>
> >> >> While I like the idea of promoting v6 deployment as we near
> >> >> exhaustion, I find the idea of further reserving the more space not
> >> >> very appealing. You must recall that the Softlanding has already
> >> >> reserved a /12 for unforeseen circumstances.
> >> >>
> >> >> Further, I am curious as to what motivated ARIN's choice to allocate
> >> >> /28-/24 block from the reserve in your policy
> >> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10
> >> >>
> >> >> I can only see this approach either breaking the Internet, as people
> >> >> drop your routes on account of size, or additional reverse delegation
> >> >> work being created for the RIR.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
> >> UG: +256 776 716 138
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
> UG: +256 776 716 138
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160128/d751c3a2/attachment-0001.html>