Suggested updates to 2010-05 (Global Policy for IPv4 Allocation by the IANA post exhaustion)
Hello APWG, After receiving great feedback in several regions, the original authors of the proposal have discussed all of the feedback received and our suggested revisions are below: Problem #1: The allocation method was unfair. The intent was never for a single RIR to be able to be allocated all available address space in mass quantities. We do however want any available address space to be utilized if there is need. We've addressed what we would characterize as a mechanical issue. --new text: Section 3. Address Allocations from the Reclamation Pool by the IANA Allocations from the Reclamation Pool may begin once the pool is declared active. Addresses in the Reclamation Pool must be allocated on a CIDR boundary. Allocations from the Reclamation Pool are subject to a minimum allocation unit equal to the minimum allocation unit of all RIRs and a maximum allocation unit of one /8. The Reclamation Pool will be divided on CIDR boundaries and distributed evenly to all eligible RIRs once each quarter. Any remainder not evenly divisible by the number of eligible RIRs based on a CIDR boundary equal to or larger than the minimum allocation unit will remain in the Reclamation Pool. Addresses that are left over will be held in the Reclamation Pool until additional IP addresses can be returned to rejoin addresses on CIDR boundaries to the Reclamation Pool or a minimum allocation unit is set to allow allocation from existing inventory. Problem #2: Without excluding transition space, some RIR's would never be eligible. To address this, we've defined a /10 exemption for any/all pools of address space set-aside by any RIR. --new text Section 4. RIR Eligibility for Receiving Allocations from the Reclamation Pool Upon the exhaustion of an RIR's free space pool and after receiving their final /8 from the IANA[3], an RIR will become eligible to request address space from the IANA Reclamation Pool when it publicly announces via its respective global announcements email list and by posting a notice on its website that it has exhausted its supply of IPv4 address space. Exhaustion is defined as an inventory of less than the equivalent of a single /8 and the inability to further assign address space to its customers in units equal to or shorter than the longest of any RIR's policy defined minimum allocation unit. Up to one /10 or equivalent of IPv4 address space specifically reserved for any special purpose by an RIR will not be counted against that RIR when determining eligibility unless that space was received from the IANA reclamation pool. Any RIR that is formed after the ICANN Board of Directors has ratified this policy is not eligible to utilize this policy to obtain IPv4 address space from the IANA. These revisions are being proposed in all regions in order to maintain consistency in the policy text on the global level. Thank you for your consideration. ~Chris -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
there was a policy passed in all regions except arin. get a bleeping clue. randy
Randy, The clue is that without a compromise nothing with pass anywhere. That would be a more sad state of affairs. Best, -M< On 9/19/10 2:41 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
there was a policy passed in all regions except arin. get a bleeping clue.
randy
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 12:41, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
there was a policy passed in all regions except arin. get a bleeping clue.
I will try to explain my reasoning for supporting this proposal once more: 1) The previous global policy referred to above had two very distinct provisions; to allow IANA to accept and re-allocate space and to mandate that all space returned to all RIRs was returned to IANA. 2) The policy that I helped write, under discussion here, addresses the former provision. 3) This new policy proposal in no way precludes another proposal to address the latter provision if folks feel that is the correct course of action. In fact it likely facilitates it. We (the co-authors/contributers) see the absolute need for IANA to be able to accept and distribute IPv4 space post free-pool depletion and we see that the previous proposal appears to be at an impasse. Hence this proposal. Thus, the fact that the previous proposal has not been adopted globally is actually the very reason that we need this policy. It is not, as the OP seems to suggest, a reason not to adopt this proposal. Cheers, ~Chris
randy
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
On 20/09/2010 22:55, Chris Grundemann wrote:
Thus, the fact that the previous proposal has not been adopted globally is actually the very reason that we need this policy. It is not, as the OP seems to suggest, a reason not to adopt this proposal.
Regardless of the history of the previous proposal, history will not look back kindly if we collectively flail our arms in the air and claim "it would never work, so there's no point in even trying". Call this naivety, idealism, or stupidity - I don't really care. The policy has merit and refusing to deal with it now (while we're still vaguely sanguine about IPv4 address allocation) will merely create a much more troublesome environment for attempting to get any sort of global agreement of any sort in the future (when no-one will be even remotely happy about allocation policy). Nick
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 16:20, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
Regardless of the history of the previous proposal, history will not look back kindly if we collectively flail our arms in the air and claim "it would never work, so there's no point in even trying". Call this naivety, idealism, or stupidity - I don't really care. The policy has merit and refusing to deal with it now (while we're still vaguely sanguine about IPv4 address allocation) will merely create a much more troublesome environment for attempting to get any sort of global agreement of any sort in the future (when no-one will be even remotely happy about allocation policy).
I completely agree. You have, in fact, written a fairly accurate description of why I am putting my time and effort into this policy. Now is the time to act - we can neither live in the past nor expect the future to take care of itself. ~Chris (again speaking entirely on my own)
Nick
On 19/09/2010 19:12, Chris Grundemann wrote:
Problem #1: The allocation method was unfair.
"Fairness" is a remarkably mercurial concept which has little or no meaning in an environment of plenty. It's much easier to talk about "unfairness": which is the state of mind of candidate A, when candidate B receives preferential treatment. Just look at squabbling children and their exquisitely honed sense of personal injustice. I would suggest that - regardless of the rules set up now - there will be a lot of "unfairness" and "injustice" of this sort once address space exhaustion hits. Nick
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 16:26, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
On 19/09/2010 19:12, Chris Grundemann wrote:
Problem #1: The allocation method was unfair.
"Fairness" is a remarkably mercurial concept which has little or no meaning in an environment of plenty. It's much easier to talk about "unfairness": which is the state of mind of candidate A, when candidate B receives preferential treatment. Just look at squabbling children and their exquisitely honed sense of personal injustice.
Understood. As a parent I definitely see that the term can be used subjectively as well as objectively. Letting one child eat all of the food in the house while the other starves falls clearly into the latter case, imo. This is very similar to the problem we believe that we have corrected in the new text; as described in the OP: The intent was never for a single RIR to be able to be allocated all available address space in mass quantities. We do however want any available address space to be utilized if there is need. We've addressed what we would characterize as a mechanical issue.
I would suggest that - regardless of the rules set up now - there will be a lot of "unfairness" and "injustice" of this sort once address space exhaustion hits.
I agree in that there will be "pain" felt by everyone and thus very likely calls of "unfairness" and "injustice." I believe that our goal as stewards of the Internet (or at the very least policy makers) should be to try to spread the pain as proportionally as possible - so that such inevitable cries are much more of the subjective type than the objective.
Nick
Best,
~Chris (speaking for myself - I did not clear this response with other authors, etc)
On 19/09/2010 19:12, Chris Grundemann wrote:
Hello APWG,
After receiving great feedback in several regions, the original authors of the proposal have discussed all of the feedback received and our suggested revisions are below:
.....
These revisions are being proposed in all regions in order to maintain consistency in the policy text on the global level. Thank you for your consideration.
Just a note that this policy is now exactly equivalent to policy proposal 2009-01 as passed in the ARIN region but which failed globally. Nigel
participants (5)
-
Chris Grundemann -
Hannigan, Martin -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Randy Bush