ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[implementing-ipv4-post]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comments on Implementing the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA

  • To: implementing-ipv4-post@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comments on Implementing the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
  • From: Byron Ellacott <bje@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:52:08 +1000

Dear IANA,

The global policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms calls for the 
IANA to administer a temporary holding registry for certain forms of IPv4 
address space that has been returned to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) 
and is awaiting redistribution back to the RIRs under the terms of the global 
policy.
 
What this policy does not call for is the redefinition of the IANA IPv4 address 
space registry 
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml).
 
The IANA discussion paper canvasses a number of "Registry features", and notes 
that there are "key options" when considering modifications to the Ipv4 
registry. It is noted that the global policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 
Allocation Mechanisms did not call for functional changes to the existing IPv4 
registry, including the ability to apply a filter to the registry contents, the 
ability to search the registry, and the graphical representation of particular 
elements in the registry. Our comment is that irrespective of the merits or 
otherwise of these registry features, the consideration of the inclusion of 
these features into the IANA IPv4 address space registry is beyond the scope of 
the global policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms. Accordingly, 
we do not agree with the proposition that such options should be considered 
when implementing the registry actions associated with this policy.
 
This section of the paper also canvasses the registration of legacy registrants 
with /8s and appears to suggest that there are special considerations at play 
here that differ from the requirements of other address blocks that are 
described in this registry. The paper does not elucidate as to what such 
requirements may be, and there is no clear explanation of this assertion.
 
The position of APNIC is one that is strongly in favour of the "multiple 
registries" approach. The ground for this position is that the registries are 
actually different registries that describe different circumstances and 
different actions. The existing IANA Ipv4 registry records the historical 
actions of the IANA in performing allocations and assignments of IPv4 address 
space, recording the status of the address space, the administrative controller 
of each block of address space, the data of allocation or assignment, and a 
pointer to the relevant document as appropriate. The Returns Registry is 
intended to function as a "parking lot": returned address space is recorded in 
this address space for the duration of the time it is held by the IANA, and at 
the time of its subsequent assignment or allocation to an RIR the entry would 
be erased from the Returns Registry, as it is no longer held by the IANA. The 
difference between the two registries is that the IPv4 address space registry 
records the history of IANA's allocations of /8 address blocks, while the 
proposed Returns Registry would describe the set of returned addresses that are 
currently held by the IANA prior to their redistribution.
 
APNIC notes that the IANA IPv4 address space registry does not contain a 
detailed list of the current disposition of every IPv4 address, nor is it the 
intent of this registry to contain such information. The body of the IANA IPv4 
registry records the designation status of each component /8 block in the IPv4 
address space. APNIC notes that the  global policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 
Allocation Mechanisms does not call for any changes to this registry management 
practice, and therefore concludes that a consistent implementation of this 
policy would leave this registry unaltered.
 
With respect to the allocation practices canvassed in this paper APNIC notes 
the pros and cons of the two approaches as described in the paper and has no 
particular preference to either approach.

Thanks,
  Byron Ellacott

-- 
Byron Ellacott                  email:           bje@xxxxxxxxx
Technical Director, APNIC       sip:        bje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.apnic.net            phone:         +61 7 3858 3100
________________________________________________________________________
 * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy