[sig-policy] Report on prop-062: Use of final /8

["张健" <zhangjian@cnnic.cn>]

> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> prop-062: Use of final /8
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Dear SIG members
> 
> Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
> you to continue discussions on the mailing list before APNIC 26.
> 
> Regards,
> Randy and Jian
> 
> 
> Proposal summary
> ----------------
> 
> It is proposed that new and existing LIRs in the APNIC region be able
> to receive a single /22 from the last /8 if they meet the current
> allocation criteria.
> 
> In addition, it is proposed that a /16 be reserved from the final /8
> for distribution for future, as yet unknown, technology requirements.
> 
> This proposal would only be implemented if APNIC receives a final /8
> from IANA under the successful implementation of "prop-055: Global
> policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space".
> 
> Proposals similar to this one have been submitted to the following
> RIRs:
> 
>       ARIN   "2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6  
> deployment"
>              is currently under discussion.
> 
>       LACNIC "LAC-2008-04: Special IPv4 allocations/assignments reserved
>              for new members" reached consensus at the LACNIC XI meeting
>              in May 2008.
> 
> 
> Discussion statistics
> ---------------------
> 
> Posted to Policy SIG mailing list:             15 July 2008
> 
> Number of posts:                               30
> 
> Number of people participating in discussions: 9
> 
> 
> Summary of discussions to date
> ------------------------------
> 
> - There was concern that the total number of /22s reserved under the
>     proposal would leave most of the final /8 unallocated for a very  
> long
>     time.
> 
>     - It was suggested that adopting the proposal, and leaving much of
>       the last /8 unallocated, could be against APNIC By-laws, which
>       state that APNIC's purpose is to distribute resources.
> 
>     - It was suggested that the proposal use the same reservation size
>       used in the policy that reached consensus in the LACNIC region: a
>       /12 rather than a /8.
> 
>     - There was discussion about the projected membership numbers over
>       the coming years.
> 
>     - It was questioned whether it was necessarily unsatisfactory if  
> part
>       of the last /8 remained unused.
> 
>     - It was pointed out that networks could request IPv6 space if the
>       /22 that would be allocated under this proposal did not meet
>       networks' needs.
> 
>     - It was noted that the proposal was suggesting a form of rationing
>       and that rationing could lead to hoarding and markets where prices
>       are inflated by the relative scarcity of the item.
> 
>     - It was questioned why the distribution of the final /8 under
>       current APNIC policies was unfair and needed to be changed.
> 
>     - It was suggested that it might be a good idea to reserve some IP
>       addresses for potential future outcomes, but not as much as stated
>       in the proposal.
> 
> - It was noted that the point of the proposal was to allow networks a
>     share of the remaining IPv4 pool, not to grow their IPv4 networks,
>     but to help networks make the move to IPV6.
> 
> - It was suggested that there be a proposal that tied a reserved block
>     of final IPv4 addresses to a demonstrated plan for IPv6 deployment.
> 
> - It was suggested that this proposal abandons the previous principal
>     of allocating IP addresses on the basis of demonstrated need.
> 
> - It was noted that it was important to let the Internet industry
>     remain open to new entrants, and that this proposal allowed this to
>     occur.
> 
> - It was suggested that there be a sunset clause for the proposed
>     policy, after which, any unallocated addresses in the reserved block
>     be made available under the current justified need criteria.
> 
> - It was suggested that to prevent LIRs opening up multiple
>     organizations to obtain more than one /22 from the pool, that APNIC
>     have the right to review allocations from the block and have the
>     right to revoke allocations to multiple incorporations of the
>     same organization.
> 
> - It was suggested that /22 could be too small to be used in conjunction
>    with services such as NAT. It was suggested that /21 could be more
>    suitable.
> 
> 
> Full details of the proposal, including links to previous discussions
> of it at earlier APNIC meetings, can be found at:
> 
>        http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v001.html
> 
>