"Izumi AIZU" <iza@anr.org> writes:
2007/11/6, Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com>:
I'd like also to see something like:
"ensure that a uniform policy is adopted by all RIRs"
To be clear (as John has said) each RIR has its own PDP and is its own entity. Today, there is no way to enforce that each RIR has a "uniform" policy. This was discussed explicitely at the ARIN meeting last month (as a problem of sorts), where it was pointed out that on IPv6, after all the RIRs adopted the same "globally-coordinated" policy, each RIR started making individual tweaks to it. This is by definition allowed by the RIR/PDP structure, and indeed, people sometimes say that is the an important benefit of having different RIRs - one gets regional diversity. (Personally, I support that to some degree, except that it can also clash with the notion that we have only one Internet, and that it really is more important to keep the global nature in mind than focussing on regional differences. Local/regional differences can easily be made to the detriment of the global whole.)
"reserve a pool of IPv4 addresses for future emergency allocation" Emergency to be decided at ICANN level.
Personally, I am not comfortable with this. for many reasons. First, who decides what "future emergency allocation" policy will be used to hand out addresses? Talk about a tar baby! Currently the expertise for making these sorts of decisions resides squarely with the RIRs. I don't think ICANN has either the expertise nor the mandate to take this on. And were IANA to take on this role, it would like meet with resistance from the RIRs as being "turf creep". This general topic is currently being discussed within all the RIRs. There is no single easy answer, and there does not appear (yet) to be any consensus on how to deal with this. Second, how much would be reserved? There isn't much left, and we'd presumably need to "reserve" quite a bit. Today, address space is being consumed at a rate of more than a dozen /8s per year (IANA has 42 left as of this week). I even know of large ISPs that project usage of 1 (or more) /8s just for their projected growth in 2008. Just looking at the raw demand, there would be a huge demand for "emergency" space. To be clear, for anyone who needs more space to grow, it is an "emergency" if they cannot get such space. Who is to say that "your" emergency is more important than "mine"? What criteria would you use, and what would be "fair"? Again, "fairness" is usually viewed through the eyes of the beholder, and I'd bet a lot of organizations would view "fair" as something other than "I was denied, but that guy over there got space." Finally, I assume this statement is going to the ASO (or the RIRs) rather than the ICANN board. If this statement is to go to the board, exactly what do you think the ICANN board can do with it? I think folk need to understand what role ICANN plays in this space and how much influence it really has. Making requests that cannot actually be acted upon just leads to frustration (on all sides) and doesn't usually help anyone. :-( Thomas