Name: Toshiyuki HOSAKA
Organisation: JPNIC IPv4 countdown policy team
Policy affected: The current on-demand global policy for the distribution
of IPv4 address space to the Regional
Internet Registry (RIR) system.
Version: Draft
Date:29 August 2007
Status: Open for discussion
Authors: Akinori MAEMURA, Akira NAKAGAWA, Izumi
OKUTANI, Kosuke ITO, Kuniaki KONDO, Shuji NAKAMURA, Susumu
SATO, Takashi ARANO, Tomohiro FUJISAKI, Tomoya YOSHIDA, Toshiyuki
HOSAKA
Policy Affected: The current on-demand global policy
for the distribution of IPv4 address space to the Regional Internet
Registry (RIR) system.
Incentive: This proposal seeks
to provide the solutions to the problems in terms of address management
which may arise if no measures are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.
Policy Proposal Name: End Policy for IANA IPv4
allocations to RIRs .
Proposal:
1) Distribute a single /8 to each RIR at the point
when new IANA free pool hits 5 */8. This date is defined as "IANA
Exhaustion Date".
2) It should be completely left up to each RIR
communities to define a regional policy on how to distribute the
remaining RIR free pool to LIRs within their respective regions
after "IANA Exhaustion Date".
Note 1: It is fine for an RIR to continue operations
with the existing policy if that is the consensus decision of the
respective RIR community.
Note 2: Address recovery and re-distribution of
recovered address space is another important measure for considerations,
but should be treated as a separate policy proposal from distribution
of new IANA pool.
3) RIRs should provide an official projection
on IANA Exhaustion Date to the community through their website,
at their Policy Meetings and through any other effective means.
Rationale:
[current problem]
There are two major issues in terms of address
management if no measures are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.
1) Continue applying a global coordinated policy
for distribution of the last piece(s) of RIR's unallocated address
block does not match the reality of the situation in each RIR region.
Issues each RIR region will face during the exhaustion
period vary by region as the level of development of IPv4 and IPv6
are widely different. As a result, applying a global co-ordinated
policy may not
adequately address issues in a certain region while it could be
work for the others.
For example, in a region where late comers desperately
need even small blocks of IPv4 addresses to access to the IPv4 Internet,
a policy that defines the target of allocations/assignments of IPv4
address space to
be late comers would be appropriate in such region. This would allow
availablilty of IPv4 address space for such requirements for more
years.
Another example comes from difference in IPv6 deployment
rate. For a region where IPv6 deployment rate is low, measures may
be necessary to prolong IPv4 address life for the existing business
as well as for new
businesses until networks are IPv6 ready. Some regions may have
strong needs to secure IPv4 address space for translators.
A globally coordinated policy which addresses all
the issues listed above to meet the needs for all RIR regions may
result in not solving issues in any of the regions.
2) LIRs and stakeholders remain unprepared for
the situation if they are not informed.
If LIRs and the community are uninformed of the
exhaustion, their services and networks remain unprepared to face
the situation at the time of exhaustion.
[Objective of the proposal]
This proposal seeks to provide the following solutions
to the problems listed above.
1) RIR community should be able to define their
own regional policies on how to assign the last piece(s) of allocation
block in order to address their own regional issues during the exhaustion
period.
2) RIRs should provide official projection of
the date when LIRs will be able to receive the allocations under
the current criteria. The criteria should remain consistent until
this date in order to avoid confusion.
[Pros and Cons]
Pros:
+ It allows each RIR community to define a policy on how to distribute
the last piece(s) of allocations which best matches their situation.
+ It helps LIR better informed of the date when
they are able to receive allocations from RIRs under the current
criteria and prepare for the event.
Cons:
+ Concerns could be raised about allocating a fixed size to all
RIRs, that it artificially fastens the consumption rate of some
RIR regions. However, its impact is kept to minimum by keeping the
allocation size to a single /8 which makes merely 3-4 months difference.
+ Concerns could be raised that explicitly allowing
regional policies will encourage RIR shopping. However, this should
not happen if the requirements within each region is adequately
reflected in each
RIR's policy through PDP. RIR may also chose to add criteria to
prevent LIRs from other regions submitting such requests.
Timetable for implementation:
Immediate after all 5 RIRs (and possibly ICANN) ratifies the policy.
|
