Policy Proposals to Be Discussed at the LACNIC 27 Forum


Policy Proposals to Be Discussed at the LACNIC 27 Forum

During the LACNIC Public Policy Forum to be held in May in Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, the community will decide on eight proposals concerning changes to the Internet resource management policies in force in the LACNIC region.

These proposals have been submitted by members of the community and are being discussed on LACNIC’s policy mailing list (https://politicas.lacnic.net/).

The community’s proposals basically refer to the modification of the size of initial IPv6 allocations, the authorization of one-way interregional transfers to LACNIC, the modification of the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers and resource revocation.

IPv4 Transfers. Promoted by Daniel Miroli of IP Trading, the proposal to authorize one-way IPv4 address transfers to LACNIC seeks to allow organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean to obtain address blocks from other Regional Internet Registries that allow inter-RIR transfers.

To justify this, Miroli argues that “one-way interregional transfers to LACNIC” would provide many of the region’s operators with the opportunity to acquire resources and have them duly registered with LACNIC.

According to the impact analysis of the proposal conducted by LACNIC staff, the proposal could be applied “in cases where a source organization submits a request to transfer an IPv4 block to an organization in the LACNIC region. The source organization may be part of our region or of a region whose RIR policies allow the transfer of addresses to the LACNIC region.”

Also according to this analysis, implementing this proposal would require articulating changes in the systems in coordination with those RIRs which, at the time of implementing the proposal, have policies in force that are compatible with transfers as described in this proposal.

Minimum Size of IPv4 Assignments. Another policy proposal under discussion is one which seeks to modify the minimum size of IPv4 address assignments for ISPs from the current /22 to a /24.

According to the authors, now that the region has entered IPv4 exhaustion, “some new ISPs must face the problem of being unable to meet the minimum address utilization requirements for obtaining the equivalent of a /22 from LACNIC, while their providers don’t have the available addresses needed to meet their needs.”

Thus, they suggest changing the minimum assignment size from a /22 to a /24, so that it will be easier for operators currently using very few addresses to meet the requirements for receiving an IPv4 assignment.

The proposal also considers the fact that only one address assignment will be allowed, as the region is now in the final phase of IPv4 address exhaustion.

Modification of Initial IPv6 Assignments. There are two policy proposals under discussion for modifying the size of initial IPv6 allocations, both promoted by Jordi Palet Martinez of Consulintel.

In short, these proposals refer to the fact that there are organizations in the region that are not strictly ISPs in the “traditional” sense of the term and which might not sufficiently justify the need for a block larger than a /32 under the current text of the policy. Thus, the proposal seeks to modify the rules so that those organizations that would qualify for an initial allocation larger than a /32 can receive the addresses if they submit documentation justifying their request.

There is another policy proposal being analyzed on the mailing list which has to do with modifying the size of initial allocations. According to author Jordi Palet, the aim is to avoid unnecessary renumbering work for the ISP that requests the addresses and also for LACNIC staff.

Palet suggests that, if during IPv6 deployment an organization realizes there are differences in terms of size as compared to the moment when the initial allocation request was submitted, a new addressing plan can be submitted to LACNIC, without having to wait until meeting the requirements for subsequent assignments. Therefore, the organization would not have to prove utilization thresholds, but instead its desire to implement a different addressing plan that is more in line with the reality of the deployment.

To subscribe to the Policy Mailing List:


Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments