[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nigel Titley
nigel at titley.com
Thu Apr 15 19:40:55 CEST 2010
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 -0600, cja at daydream.com wrote: > > > Nigel would you not consider directly returning 4 entire /8s back to > IANA not significant? Since there is no policy currently by which 4 /8s is indeed nice. And my original compliment to ARIN still stands. > IANA can hand out anything less than a /8 it seems that returning > smaller blocks to IANA so they can be stuck there might not be such a > great idea? How about a global policy directing IANA how to hand out > smaller blocks to the RIRs might be in order? Well, that of course is what 2009-01 provided. > > > That policy is here > http://www.icann.org/en/general/allocation-IPv4-rirs.html > > > > Allocation Principles > > * The IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in /8 > units. > * The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv4 address space to the > RIRs to support their registration needs for at least an 18 > month period. > * The IANA will allow for the RIRs to apply their own respective > chosen allocation and reservation strategies in order to > ensure the efficiency and efficacy of their work. And this policy is going to be completely ineffective once IANA has less than a /8 in store... which is next year, remember. One of the goals of 2009-01 was to provide a means for IANA to accept and allocate smaller than /8s. But I re-iterate. I'm only trying to sort out the washup of 2009-01. It isn't ever likely to be a global policy now. All the best Nigel
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]