Skip to main content

End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs

This policy proposal has been withdrawn
Publication date
Draft document
DRAFT: End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs
  • Toshiyuki Hosaka [Japan Network Information Centre (JPNIC)]
Proposal Version
1.0 - 15 Oct 2007
All Versions
01 Mar 2008
State Discription
Authors decided that they want to make a new proposal (see 2008-03)
Working Group
Address Policy Working Group
Proposal type
  • New
Policy term

This proposal seeks to provide the solutions to the problems in terms of address management which may arise if no measures are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.

Summary of Proposal:

This proposal seeks to provide the solutions to the problems in terms of address management which may arise if no measures are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.


Arguments Supporting the Proposal

  • It allows each RIR community to define a policy on how to distribute the last piece(s) of allocations which best matches their situation.
  • It helps LIR better informed of the date when they are able to receive allocations from RIRs under the current criteria and prepare for the event.

[current problem]

There are two major issues in terms of address management if no measures are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.

1) Continue applying a global coordinated policy for distribution of the last piece(s) of RIR's unallocated address block does not match the reality of the situation in each RIR region.

Issues each RIR region will face during the exhaustion period vary by region as the level of development of IPv4 and IPv6 are widely different. As a result, applying a global co-ordinated policy may not adequately address issues in a certain region while it could be work for the others.

For example, in a region where late comers desperately need even small blocks of IPv4 addresses to access to the IPv4 Internet, a policy that defines the target of allocations/assignments of IPv4 address space to be late comers would be appropriate in such region. This would allow availablilty of IPv4 address space for such requirements for more years.

Another example comes from difference in IPv6 deployment rate. For a region where IPv6 deployment rate is low, measures may be necessary to prolong IPv4 address life for the existing business as well as for new businesses until networks are IPv6 ready. Some regions may have strong needs to secure IPv4 address space for translators. A globally coordinated policy which addresses all the issues listed above to meet the needs for all RIR regions may result in not solving issues in any of the regions.

2) LIRs and stakeholders remain unprepared for the situation if they are not informed.

If LIRs and the community are uninformed of the exhaustion, their services and networks remain unprepared to face the situation at the time of exhaustion.

[Objective of the proposal]

This proposal seeks to provide the following solutions to the problems listed above.

1) RIR community should be able to define their own regional policies on how to assign the last piece(s) of allocation block in order to address their own regional issues during the exhaustion period.

2) RIRs should provide official projection of the date when LIRs will be able to receive the allocations under the current criteria. The criteria should remain consistent until this date in order to avoid confusion.

Arguments Opposing the Proposal

  • Concerns could be raised about allocating a fixed size to all RIRs, that it artificially fastens the consumption rate of some RIR regions. However, its impact is kept to minimum by keeping the allocation size to a single /8 which makes merely 3-4 months difference.
  • Concerns could be raised that explicitly allowing regional policies will encourage RIR shopping. However, this should not happen if the requirements within each region is adequately reflected in each RIR's policy through PDP. RIR may also chose to add criteria to prevent LIRs from other regions submitting such requests.