[LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd: [address-policy-wg] IANA implementation analysis of proposal 2011-01, "Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA"

Arturo Servin aservin at lacnic.net
Tue Sep 20 10:51:50 BRT 2011


	The list (LACNIC PDP politicas at lacnic.net) is copied in this e-mail but I never saw the message so I guess it didn't pass through.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: S Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IANA implementation analysis of proposal 2011-01, "Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA"
> Date: 19 September 2011 04:07:57 GMT-03:00
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Cc: Philip Smith <pfsinoz at gmail.com>, Alejandro Acosta <alejandro.acosta at bt.com>, sig-policy at lists.apnic.net, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at bb.softbank.co.jp>, Nicolas Antoniello <nantoniello at gmail.com>, rpd at afrinic.net, politicas at lacnic.net, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at yahoo.com>, "GT RAMIREZ, Medel G." <medel at globetel.com.ph>, arin-ppml at arin.net
> At 06:08 05-08-2011, Emilio Madaio wrote:
>> In order to provide a more comprehensive overview of the expected
>> implementation aspects of proposal 2011-01, the RIPE NCC sought input
>> from IANA staff.
>> Below is the analysis produced by Leo Vegoda. We hope that this input
>> will be useful to RIPE community discussion of this proposal.
> [snip]
>> IANA staff impact analysis of RIPE policy proposal 2011-01
>> This analysis considers the impact of ratification of RIPE policy proposal 2011-01 (as a part of GPP-IPv4-2011) by the ICANN Board of Directors.
>> 1. The policy would require ICANN, as the IANA function operator, to establish a Recovered IPv4 Pool. The pool would have to include "any fragments that may be left over in the IANA".  In order to do this, ICANN staff would have to work closely with the five RIRs' staffs to make sure the initial pool included all fragments assigned to IANA. It is not clear whether this policy proposal is intended to supersede the IETF's right to make IPv4 assignments for "specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks)" as documented in section 4.3 of RFC 2860. This should be clarified but that can probably be done by way of assertions from the NRO rather than a revision to the policy text. In the event that the policy is intended to supersede RFC 2860 there is a potential issue with the internal reservation of small blocks address blocks that have been informally reserved for IETF standards track work currently in progress.
> The authors of proposal 2011-01 (GPP-IPv4-2011) do not intend to take over the IETF's
> role in assigning internet resources.
> The IANA Staff analysis asks for an assertion from the NRO instead of a revision to the policy text.  During discussions with the ARIN Advisory Council, it was mentioned that the clarification requires a text change to the proposal.  It was also mentioned that the ASO, instead of the NRO, must provide the clarification.  To avoid any doubt, the authors of the proposal would appreciate if the ASO or the NRO, whichever is the appropriate party, can clarify that.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy 

More information about the Politicas mailing list