Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Wed Nov 9 21:20:58 UTC 2016
>>> 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 ?
I don’t believe text is necessary as I don’t believe that is an appropriate thing to add to the policy.
IPv4 policy should govern the acquisition and distribution of IPv4 addresses. It should not mandate the acquisition or distribution of IPv6 addresses, nor should it be constrained by them. They should remain independent from a policy perspective.
>>> 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.
Sure… Obviously I misunderstood you when you said “now we have heard from the bystander, let us hear from those in the region affected by the policies” in an email to me. I apologize for misconstruing your statement to me.
>> 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.
I’m perfectly willing to discuss the size we should place on such a reserve in support of poor judgment even while I oppose the creation of such a thing to begin with.
Of course, I think if we must have such a thing, then it should be the smallest possible amount of space imaginable. I propose a single /32 as a starting point.
> 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.
> =======
To be honest with you, I opposed and continue to oppose this provision as well.
While upon re-reading that, I realize that it does allow the board to transfer space from this “reserve in support of poor judgment” to the free pool, however, my initial reading, I felt that it implied an authority for the board to attempt to purchase resources on the inter-RIR transfer market to refill the pool (which I think would be an absurd waste of AfriNIC funds).
>> We’re in a very different time now.
>
> Yes, but we are still struggling and this region as usual has his specifities
Sure, but those specificities do not call for anything which encourages or promotes continued bad judgment.
Owen
>
> —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 <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> 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/d19423f3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list