RE: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal

[Ray Plzak <plzak@arin.net>]

Just a point of clarification regarding RIR expedited policy mechanisms, ARIN has had such a process since 2000. This is documented in the ARIN PDP document.

Ray
________________________________________
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of David Conrad [david.conrad@icann.org]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 1:43 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal

Hi,

First, I'd like to thank the folks at APNIC for initiating this
policy discussion.  I should also note explicitly that this message
is sent in my personal capacity, NOT as a statement from IANA or
ICANN.  These are only questions/comments from me, nothing more.

With respect to the proposed policy, I have the following comments:

>       (1) Global synchronization:
>               All five RIRs will proceed at the same time for measures on IPv4
>               address exhaustion.

I assume this synchronization is in the context of allocation policy.

Given the timeframes we're looking at, it isn't clear to me the
current RIR policy definition mechanisms are agile and/or quick
enough to adjust to the changes in the address "market" in a
synchronized fashion.  Would it make sense for the RIRs to come up
with an expedited policy definition mechanism?

As each RIR is an independent actor required by their respective
bylaws to be responsive to their communities, how would such global
synchronization be enforced?  Also, wouldn't such synchronization in
the face of increased demand due to scarcity be considered collusion
or cartel-like behavior?

>       (2) Some Blocks to be left:
>               Keep a few /8 stocks instead of distributing all.

Obviously, this would result in the IPv4 free pool runout date being
artificially accelerated.  I'm not sure the justification as provided
in the policy proposal supports this acceleration.  Specifically:

>                                             It is expected to cause
> confusions
>               if one  party can receive an allocation while the other has to
>               give up, just with a touch of a difference.

This is simply reality and (I'm told) has been experienced by folks
already.  I would imagine more confusion (and heated discussion)
would be generated by the existence of a remaining "reserved" free
pool when people are turned away who could have been satisfied with a
portion of that free pool.

Additionally:

>                                              requirements to start
> a translator
>               service between IPv4 and IPv6 networks should be supported, and
>               there may be some requirements in the future that are beyond
>               our imagination at this current moment.

Realistically, any sort of protocol development of this nature would,
by necessity, have to deal with the fact that large blocks of
contiguous IPv4 address space are unavailable.  Proposing to reserve
blocks of addresses for some prospective and unimagined future
development raises the question of "how much to reserve?" and I don't
see a particularly good answer to this question.

>       (3) Keeping current practices until the last moment :
>               Maintain the current policy until the last allocation.

It is unclear to me that such an approach can withstand the demands
of the address-consuming community.   Fundamentally, the issue the
community is facing is the same as faced by any consumer of a limited
resource and I believe there are textbooks written on Scarcity
Theory.  IANAE (I am not an economist), but I believe the two ends of
the spectrum in dealing with scarce resources are:

a) centralized control with rationing ("to each according to need")
b) marketization

What this policy proposal is suggesting is a rather extreme form of
(a), with little regard to what happens after the last IPv4 block
from the free pool (either the hard limit or the artificial soft
limit created by reserving some /8s as described in principle 2) is
allocated.  I am skeptical the demand for IPv4 addresses is going to
magically vanish on that day, rather I suspect ISPs will do what is
necessary to ensure they are able to meet their customer's demands
(see (b)).

If the community wishes to continue with centralized control,
wouldn't a graduated approach to rationing (e.g., increasing the
amount of assignments needed to justify an allocation over time) be
preferable to a binary "yes we have addresses/no we don't" flag day?

Rgds,
-drc

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy