Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

ALAIN AINA aalain at trstech.net
Wed Nov 9 17:28:01 UTC 2016


Hello,

inline...

[….]

> 
>> 5.4.7 IPv4 Address Space Reserve 
>> 
>>  <>5.4.7.1 A /12 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the final /8. This /12 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AFRINIC for some future uses, as yet unforeseen. The Internet is innovative and we cannot predict with certainty what might happen. Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in reserve, just in case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4 addresses.
>> 
>>  5.4.7.2 When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address space (from the Final /8 or from any other available address space), the Board may at its discretion and considering the demand and other factors at the time replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever address space (or part thereof) that may be available to AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best interest of the community.
>> ======
>> 
>>> This is a new feature of this proposal.
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> It is the  reserve set by section  5.4.7,  we am calling in the explanation message  “Strategic Reserve”.
>> We propose to reduce this reserve to /13 to accommodate  critical infrastructures( /16) and New comers(/14). Other improvement is that instead of the board deciding at its sole discretion how to use this reserve, we suggest  AFRINIC and the community to decide. 
>> 
> 
> I stand corrected. I favor deleting this provision, nonetheless.
> 

I Heard you. 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> This is a “Strategic Reserve”  for future use on which community will decide as we go.  As such i would like to hear from people in the region on the Strategic Reserve;  3.125% of the  specific last /8 (102/8)
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure if you intended this to be a vaguely worded implication that I am not in the region or not. While it is true that I do not reside in the region, as I have stated previously, I work for a company that has substantial operations in the region and yet has not yet consumed any AfriNIC resources while supporting virtually every single African internet user with improved internet experiences. Like it or not, while I used to be an interested bystander, for the last 19 months, I have been a participating stakeholder and not merely an interested bystander.
>> 
>> Take it easy. All true and we appreciate your contributions. I was just saying that after we have heard from "the bystander", we shall hear from people in this region who are the direct impacted by this decision.
> 
> And I’m saying that I am in the region and am directly impacted by these decisions, even though I don’t happen to reside there. I am no longer a bystander.


Ack. Noted.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Andrew Alston is very much in the region and has also been vehemently opposed to this provision.
>> 
>> Nothing new as you could see from the rpd archives and the recording of the AFRINIC-24 meeting. The only remark i could make is that Andrew has a conflict of Interest as he is co-author of the competing policy proposal which was introduced 3 days after our submission.
>> So i would only consider technical and data analysis discussions with Andrew on this matter.
> 
> I don’t see that as a conflict of interest.

> Andrew offered a proposal which, IMHO, is a more desirable alternative to yours.

We noticed this opinion long ago.

> 
> An accusation of conflict of interest is a serious thing which should not be thrown around so lightly. It describes a situation in which a person has duties to two organizations which duties are in conflict with each other. An example would be a lawyer representing both plaintiff and defendant, a real estate agent representing both seller and buyer, or a board member acting on a policy which seeks to provide an unbalanced benefit to an organization which employs said board member.
> 
> As near as I can tell, none of this applies to Andrew in this context. His preference for a proposal that he wrote is merely an extension of the reasons he wrote it in the first place… Namely that he thinks it proposes a better alternative than the one you are discussing here.

It is his right.
> 
> I will note that my original comments were a consolidated statement about both of the proposals and things I liked and didn’t like across the board in each of them.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> There’s been very little support for it on the list so far.
>> 
>> If we were to count numbers right now, i could say it is Andrew and Owen against the 3 co-authors of this proposal …
>> Much has been said and i think we should move forward unless we want to open this  again.
> 
> I’m not sure what you mean by open this again. To the best of my knowledge, neither proposal yet has anything remotely resembling what I would call consensus. To the best of my knowledge, discussion on both proposals remains open so there is nothing to “open again” that I can see.


By open again,  I mean going through the same old argument again and again without addressing the issues. What one would have expected  is what you just did below. Take the pending issues from the face  to face and address them.
> 
>> A quick reference is the minutes of the discussions at  AFRINIC-24 meeting : http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes <http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes>.
>> 
>> One can read for  Soft Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)
>> 
>> ====
>> The following feedback was received from the community after the presentation:
>> There’s a need to set the minimum to /24 since anything smaller will be un-routable or filtered when routed.
> 
> I have no strong opinion one way or the other on this.

Ack.
>> Some felt that the IPv6 requirement should be removed, while others argued for this to remain.
> 
> As much as I am an advocate of IPv6 DEPLOYMENT, forcing people to take IPv6 space without any requirement that it be deployed has been repeatedly shown not to further this objective, so I remain opposed. However, as stated above, there is no actual consensus on this matter at this time.

Can i ask you to propose text on how to add  the v6 deployment to the proposal ?
> 
>> The feeling that this proposal discourages IPv6 uptake were shared, since it unnecessarily prolongs the lifetime of IPv4 when other regions have probably adopted IPv6.
> Agreed. That is most certainly the case with this proposal, and especially with the provision in 5.4.7 of the existing policy and this proposal’s intent to preserve it.

Noted.

>> It was noted by some that the current Soft Landing policy be maintained.
> I’m all for modifying the current Soft Landing policy, but let’s do it in a useful way.


Ack.
>> There were several statements for and against the proposal.
> Which reaffirms my statement that it does not yet have anything approaching consensus.

Ack.
>> The co-chairs determined that there was no consensus to push the proposal to last call, and decided to send it back to the mailing list for further discussions.
>> 
> And here we are having those discussions, while you appear to be attempting to get me to disengage from the discussion rather than providing a substantive rebuttal to my position.


I never said that.  Let close this and move on.
> 
>> ====
>> 
>>> 
>>> Any technology which would need this “strategic reserve” is a technology which does not exist yet. From my perspective, the only thing such a provision can do is encourage such technologies to be developed with dependencies on IPv4. This is absolutely wrong-headed. We should be encouraging new technologies to be developed WITHOUT dependencies on IPv4 and with full IPv6 support from day 1.
>> 
>> Totally agree with you for the v6 support from day1. 
>>  Having a reserve does not mean, we will necessary use it. Nobody went back to try use the 240/4 of the v4 space reserved for "future use" by RFC1112.
> 
> That’s because by the time we needed it, it would have required far too much recoding of far too many systems in order to be useful and the coding effort required likely exceeded the effort required to finish deploying IPv6, thus no benefit.

And i also  supported not going there...
> 
> Having a reserve creates the illusion that a safety net exists to protect people from their own bad judgment in implementing something depending on IPv4, whether or not that reserve ever gets used. Indeed, the longer it goes unused, the worse this aspect of its existence becomes. As such, such a reserve offers no benefit to the community and serves only as an incentive to engage in bad judgment.
> 
>> As you can see from https://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2016-02#2-6 <https://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2016-02#2-6> AFRINIC  will not be the first to set such reserve.
> 
> APNIC currently holds out a /16. In the grand scheme of APNIC space, this is a very tiny amount and I’m betting that when they start to run short of /22s in their last /8, this will be reverted quickly in the APNIC region.
> 
> RIPE also holds out a /16 and the same caveats apply.
> 
> AfriNIC, with a tiny fraction of the IPv4 resources held by those two RIRs and the largest post-depletion free pool on the planet currently reserves 16 times as much space for “unforeseen circumstances” and your proposal seeks only to cut that in half (8x). Only 2 of the other 4 RIRs have such a policy and I’m betting it will be reverted relatively soon in both cases. In both cases, that policy was put in place well before runout when IPv6 adoption was less than 0.01% worldwide.

They are two elements here: the concept of the  strategic reserve and the amount of the space we put into it. The second can be discussed if we accept the first one.

Although it is said to be  for  "some future uses, as yet unforeseen”, section 5.4.7.2 says how to use it.  So AFRINIC not going to sit on this reserve.

=====
5.4.7.2 When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address space (from the Final /8 or from any other available address space), the Board may at its discretion and considering the demand and other factors at the time replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever address space (or part thereof) that may be available to AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best interest of the community.
=======

> 
> We’re in a very different time now.

Yes,  but we are still struggling and this region as usual has his specifities

—Alain 





> 
> Owen
> 
> 
>> 
>> Hope this helps
>> 
>> —Alain
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> If you reward bad judgment (which is all that you can hope for from this provision), then you get an increase in bad judgment. One need look no further than the US financial crisis of 2008 for proof of this fact.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>   IPv6  address space (AFRINIC or upstreams) as requirement to IPv4 allocations
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can you clarify this 
>>>> 
>>>>  Section 3.8, allocations criteria in the proposal read:
>>>> ……………...
>>>> LIR and End users requesting IPv4 must have IPv6 resources from AFRINIC (or request concomitantly with the IPv4) or from their upstreams.
>>>> 
>>>>> and how it is relevant or useful?
>>>> 
>>>> The last /8 (102/8) gotten through the global soft landing policy aims among other objectives to encourage a smooth transition to IPv6. 
>>>> So if you need  space from this last /108, show your IPv6.
>>>> 
>>>> Current allocations/assignment criteria for v6 are as below from CPM: 
>>>> 
>>>> 6.5.1.1 Initial allocation criteria
>>>> 
>>>> To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must:
>>>> 
>>>> Be an LIR;
>>>> Not be an end site;
>>>> Show a detailed plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations in the AFRINIC region.
>>>> Show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to end sites in the AFRINIC region within twelve months. The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within twelve months.
>>>> ===========
>>>> 
>>>> 6.8.2 Assignment Criteria
>>>> 
>>>> Assignment target - End-sites which provide Public Internet services for a single administrative organisations' network, regardless of their size.
>>>> Assignment criteria:
>>>> The end-site must not be an IPv6 LIR
>>>> The end-site must become an AFRINIC End User Member and pay the normal AFRINIC fee for its' membership category
>>>> The end site must either be a holder of IPv4 PI address space or qualify for an IPv4 PI assignment from AFRINIC under the IPv4 policy currently in effect.
>>>> The end-site must justify the need for the IPv6 PI address space.
>>>> The 'end-site' must show a plan to use and announce the IPv6 provider independent address space within twelve (12) months. After that period, if not announced, the assigned IPv6 PI address space should be reclaimed and returned to the free pool by AFRINIC.
>>>> --------
>>>> If you do not have v6 or loose your v6 (review of allocations, etc…) you will not qualify  for v4 in the last /8 unless justified.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hope this helps
>>>> 
>>>> —Alain
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   We invite people to read the FAQ which is attached to the proposal and which helps with the understanding. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1627-softlanding-bis-policy-faq-v2 <http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1627-softlanding-bis-policy-faq-v2>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   From recent discussions, the authors of the solanding-bis proposal  would be happy  to consider  making explicit in the proposal the following points:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   - Multiple new entrants under common ownership being treated as a single new entrant
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we are to have a new entrant reservation, this is a vital protection. Otherwise, anyone can find a friendly jurisdiction in the region and spin up as many new entrants as they like. Sort of like AWS for Coprorations to obtain addresses.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should also put some form of exclusion or protection against combining, consolidating, or trading in new-entrant space in any existing merger/acquisition transfer policy as well as for any future transfer/trade/sale policy that may be adopted.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>   - Allocations to New entrants being used exclusively for IPv6 transitions mechanisms and services as explained in the FAQ
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think this is also a vital protection against new entrants seeking larger than acceptable allocations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Hope this helps
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   --Alain 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 4:03 PM, Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng <mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you for the feedback, Owen. We look forward to the authors of both proposals considering the various inputs as well as offering further clarification to help the community better understand the rationale(s) behind the current drafts of their proposal(s).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Dewole.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 02/11/2016 23:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thanks for doing this… It’s very useful.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There are elements from each of the proposals I like, but none of them would get my support in their current form.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I like the idea of a reserved carve-out for critical infrastructure.
>>>>>>>> I like the idea of a small (/12, perhaps) cutout for new organizations that are late to the party to receive up to a /24 for transition purposes.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I do not like the idea of a large reservation for new entrants to the exclusion of the needs of existing participants.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I especially do not like the idea of reserving a block of addresses for some undefined future use. Any future development that would require such a thing should be done under IPv6. There is no excuse for such development to be done in a manner that requires IPv4 addresses at this point in the evolution of the internet. We should not reward or encourage backward-thinking engineering.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think that the reservation for critical infrastructure should be from a specific block.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think it would be reasonable, if there is need, for the new entrant block to be comprised of fragments totaling a /12 equivalent rather than necessarily blocking out a specific /12.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I do not think that reclaimed space should be reserved for new entrants. Rather, I would prefer to see one of two approaches taken to reclaimed space:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 	1.	An annoucement is made on relevant mailing lists that the space has been received and applications will be accepted beginning at a
>>>>>>>> 		certain date and time. Such date and time to be not less than 14 days after the announcement is sent out.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 	2.	A waiting list of unmet requests is created and the space is offered to those requestors on the waiting list on a FIFO basis.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If we are to have a new-entrant block (I consider this optional, but desirable), it should be strictly for purposes of providing the addresses needed for transitional technologies (CGN, 6rd, etc.) and we should not allocate more than a /24 to any single new entrant. Multiple new entrants under common ownership should be treated as a single new entrant in most cases.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 2016, at 13:49 , Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng <mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Good day,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As indicated in an earlier email, please take some time to view and comment on https://goo.gl/FDLmZF <https://goo.gl/FDLmZF> with a view toward fine-tuning and producing an improved IPv4 runout management plan.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dewole Ajao
>>>>>>>>> PDWG Co-Chair
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>>>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>>   RPD mailing list
>>>>>>   RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>>>>   https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161109/f62612aa/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list