[LACNIC/Politicas] Propuesta / Proposta / Proposal 2009-01

Francisco Arias francisco at arias.com.mx
Fri Feb 20 13:51:41 BRT 2009

Thank you, Heather for this really interesting questions about this
policy. Maybe some of the authors of the proposal in our region could
give some answers ... Oscar, Raul?

In the meantime I am forwarding an email that was sent to the RIPE
policy list from one of the authors in that region.

> From: Nigel Titley <nigel at titley.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries)
> To: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com>
> Cc: "Filiz Yilmaz" <filiz at ripe.net>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 7:42 AM
> Randy Bush wrote:
> > filiz,
> >
> > can someone tell us what the actual intent of this
> policy is?  like
> > in a simple sentence or two?
> >
> > randy
> >
> >
> In a nutshell...
> When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get
> back gets equitably shared amongst the RIRs
> Nigel

Básicamente lo que dice Nigel Titley es que la idea principal detrás
de esta política es la repartición equitativa entre los RIRs de los
bloques IPv4 recuperados por estos mismos a través de IANA, una vez
que se termine el espacio IPv4.


Francisco Arias
Moderador del Foro Público de Políticas - LACNIC
Moderador do Foro Público de Políticas - LACNIC
Co-chair of Public Policy Forum - LACNIC

2009/2/19 heather skanks <heather.skanks at gmail.com>:
> This policy is intended to be a global policy and thus has been
> submitted in each region.  I wrote up my thoughts and concerns and
> posted to them to the ARIN mailing list - but they are relevant to all
> regions so I thought I would submit them here to help start a
> conversation about this policy.
> I don't really have an opinion as to whether the concept is
> good/worthwhile yet - but I have a lot of concerns about how this
> would work, what the repercussions could be and whether it is worth
> it.  As written, I'm currently opposed to this policy.
> Here's a run down of my questions/concerns.
> It is not clear whether it is mandatory that RIR's proactively recover
> space, but it sounds as though it is mandatory that recovered space be
> turned over to IANA.  Is this a conflict?  Does this create a
> dis-incentive to recover space?
> If address space is returned to an RIR, and they have an immediate
> need for that space, can they assign it?  or *must* they wait for the
> quarterly interval and return it to IANA?  IMO, they shouldn't be
> forced to return it if they have requests within their region that
> could be met by reassigning the recovered space.
> Does this have the potential to break/change rDNS delegations?
> Geo-location stuff?  RPKI?
> What effect would this have on the RIR's db's?  How much work would it
> be on staff and the db's to break up their aggregates in order to
> return something?
> What does this do to aggregation?  How will preferences to aggregation
> be made? It sounds like first come, first serve.. gets the most
> aggregated prefixes.
> It sounds as though you can't return space after phase1, is this
> correct? Intentional?
> Whatever space starts in the queue by definition could be depleted in
> 1 year, if each RIR makes a request each 6 months.  Is it worth it to
> extend the "free pool" for one year?  Especially if there is no
> incentive/proactive process to recover space?  If RIR's can reassign
> returned space until the quarterly interval, there may be little if
> anything to return to IANA.
> I think this policy doesn't really do anything to extend the free pool
> or soften the blow of depletion.  I imagine there would be the least
> amount of address space in the queue the first year when it is most
> needed.  If a mechanism to return space after phase 1 existed - the
> amount of space to delegate could go up - but probably wouldn't for
> several years, until IPv6 adoption took hold.
> --Heather
> 2009/2/2 Francisco Arias <francisco at arias.com.mx>:
>> Se recibió una nueva propuesta de Política Global; se le asignó el
>> número 2009-01:
>> [LAC 2009-01] Política Global para la Distribución de bloques de
>> direcciones IPv4 a los Registros Regionales de Internet
>> http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-01-PoliticaGlobalIPv4_SP.pdf
>> Esperamos sus comentarios.
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Se recebeu a seguinte proposta de Política Global; se lhe designo o
>> numero 2009-01:
>> [LAC-2009-01] Política Global para a alocação de blocos IPv4 em
>> Registros Regionais de Internet
>> http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-01-PoliticaGlobalIPv4_PT.pdf
>> Esperamos seus comentários.
>> -----------------------------------------
>> There is a new Global Policy Proposal; it was assigned the number 2009-01:
>> [LAC-2009-01] Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 Blocks to
>> Regional Internet Registries
>> http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-01-PoliticaGlobalIPv4_EN.pdf
>> Your comments are welcome.
>> --
>> Francisco Arias
>> Moderador del Foro Público de Políticas - LACNIC
>> Moderador do Foro Público de Políticas - LACNIC
>> Chair of Public Policy Forum - LACNIC
>> _______________________________________________
>> Politicas mailing list
>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas

More information about the Politicas mailing list