1 / 19

IPv4 Address Transfer proposal APNIC prop-050-v002

IPv4 Address Transfer proposal APNIC prop-050-v002. Geoff Huston. IPv4, IPv6, and Transition: As planned. IPv4. Dual Stack. IPv6. later. now. IPv4, IPv6, and Transition: As being implemented. IPv4 Pool Exhaustion. ?. IPv4. Dual Stack. IPv6. later. now. not later enough. Motivation.

Download Presentation

IPv4 Address Transfer proposal APNIC prop-050-v002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. IPv4 Address Transfer proposalAPNIC prop-050-v002 Geoff Huston

  2. IPv4, IPv6, and Transition:As planned IPv4 Dual Stack IPv6 later now

  3. IPv4, IPv6, and Transition:As being implemented IPv4 Pool Exhaustion ? IPv4 Dual Stack IPv6 later now not later enough

  4. Motivation • If the demand for IPv4 addresses extends beyond the likely pool exhaustion date … • How will IPv4 addresses be distributed to meet this ongoing demand? • Will industry be forced into a mode of IPv4 address transfers to support dual stack deployments? • Should we look at this option now, or wait until its time to really panic?

  5. Address Transfer Proposal • APNIC to recognise the transfer of IPv4 addresses between current APNIC account holders • Record these IPv4 address transfers in the APNIC IPv4 address registry

  6. Constraints – Address Block Address block: • /24 or larger • administered by APNIC • status is “current” • subject to all current APNIC policies

  7. Constraints – Source The disposer is: • a current APNIC account holder • registered holder of the address block in APNIC registry • ineligible for any further APNIC IPv4 address allocations for 24 months • must document the reasons for any future IPv4 address requests following this 24 month period

  8. Constraints – Recipient The recipient is: • current APNIC account holder • subject to all APNIC policies • liable for APNIC fees associated with current resource holdings

  9. Details • Transfer procedure requires notification to APNIC by both parties • Details of the transfer to be published by APNIC in a transfer log • APNIC may levy a transfer registration fee

  10. Advantages • Maintain a consistent and accurate public registry of address holdings • Mitigate risks associated with potential black / grey market formation • Provide indirect incentives for address holders to recirculate unused / unneeded IPv4 address space to support the dual stack transition phase

  11. Disadvantages • Market formation and risks of various forms of market distortions emerging • This would be beyond the direct control or purview of APNIC • Potential for process abuse • Potential for further routing table growth

  12. Comparison:RIPE Policy Proposal • RIPE Proposal 2007-08 • Parties are RIPE LIRs • Respect minimum allocation size of block • Allow permanent and non-permanent transfers • Address blocks must be certified

  13. Comparison:ARIN Policy Proposal • IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal • ARIN Advisory Council proposal • Disposer has not received any resources for previous 24 months, nor able to receive resources from ARIN or from transfer for 24 months • Acquirer may only make 1 transaction each 6 months and cannot dispose for 24 months. Must be qualified under ARIN policies as requiring addresses • IP block meets minimum size constraint

  14. Further Considerations • Constraint Setting: • Application of constraints on transfers to prevent hoarding, fragmentation and speculation vs • excessive constraints potentially motivating the emergence of alternative constraint-free transfer systems outside of the the RIR framework

  15. Considerations • Side Effects: • Just how fragile is today’s routing environment? • What distinguishes transfer any different from current routing fragmentation practices?

  16. Considerations • Clarity of intended outcome: • temporary measure to mitigate some risks in the IPv6 transition and facilitate a path to an IPv6 outcome vs • the construction of a long term viable market in IPv4 addresses

  17. Considerations • Clarity of role: • Registration of outcome vs • facilitation of the redistribution of addresses

  18. Considerations • Scope: • Regional or Global? • Should this encompass a cross-RIR framework for transfers?

  19. Questions?

More Related