Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

Original Language Español Date Published 29/03/2018 Last Modified 01/05/2018
Last Call for Comments Period 12/10/2018 - 26/11/2018 Date Ratified Does not apply Implementation Date Does not apply
Status Last call for comments Download TXT PDF XML DOCX
See other versions 1.0 2.0 (compare)

Authors

Name: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Organization: The IPv6 Company

Proposal Data

Policy Type: LACNIC
Id: LAC-2018-8
Last version: 2
Presented at: LACNIC 30 Presentations:

Summary

Section 2.3.3.4.3 (Applicant Status) of the IPv4 policy on direct assignments by LACNIC to end users establishes various requirements, as well as the need to renumber and return previously received addresses.

In certain cases, the requirement to renumber and return such addresses may not make sense:

(1) Renumbering may not be convenient, and it might be preferable to 'hand over' the resources if both parties agree, with the corresponding changes in the whois database.
2) If the justified need for space is greater than the space currently available and its allocation is possible, the above allows the recipient of such space to decide whether they would like to receive a single contiguous block, or whether they would prefer to avoid renumbering by keeping their current block and receiving an additional assignment to complete the required space.

This proposal seeks to simplify the requirements and allow these options.

Rationale

This simplification is beneficial if both parties agree. Likewise, avoiding renumbering is also beneficial whenever possible.

Text

Current text:

Text currently included in section 2.3.3.4.3.

New text:

o 2.3.3.4.3. Assignment size and procedure
The applicant must justify that the assigned space will be announced from the applicant’s own autonomous system to at least one other autonomous system.

The minimum size of an IPv4 assignment to an end user is a /24; the maximum size is a /20, which must be justified according to the utilization rate (section 2.3.3.4.2).

If a block had already been assigned by a provider and the user wishes to keep this block to avoid renumbering, such block may be handed over, provided that both parties agree (changing the resource holder in LACNIC’s whois database). If additional address space has been justified and its assignment is possible, the recipient may decide whether they prefer to receive the block that is handed over plus an additional block to complete the total required space, or whether they prefer to receive a single block for the total space and therefore proceed to renumber. Should they choose to renumber, the block that had been previously assigned must be returned within 6 months. Exceptionally, this period may be extended by an additional 6 months if it can be justified that there was not enough time to obtain the required resources and complete the renumbering process.

Additional assignments shall follow the policies set forth in Section 2.3.4 applicable to end users.

Additional Information

Note: For the purpose of LACNIC operations, ‘hand over’ (ceder in the Spanish original) is equivalent to a simplification of the transfer process, under which section 2.3.2.18.5 does not apply. In any case, it would not be possible to apply this section as LACNIC has no resources available for organizations other than new-entrants.

Timetable

Immediate implementation

References

Policy proposal LAC-2018-9, which reached consensus during LACNIC29, presents a similar scenario, so it would not be reasonable for cases that would possibly have a much smaller impact on the routing table not to be accepted as well.

Public Comments by LACNIC Staff

LACNIC STAFF´S IMPACT ANALYSIS - Proposal LAC-2018-8 - versión 1

LACNIC Staff's Interpretation of the Proposal
---------------------------------------------
Applicability
-----------

This proposal would apply in the case of initial allocations to end users who have already been assigned resources by their providers.


Modifications to the current text
--------------------------------
The Policy Manual would be modified as follows:

• Modification of section 2.3.3.4. Assignment size and procedure.

o 2.3.3.4.3. Assignment size and procedure
The applicant must justify that the assigned space will be announced from the applicant’s own autonomous system to at least one other autonomous system.

The minimum size of an IPv4 assignment to an end user is a /24 block; the maximum size is a /20, which must be justified according to the utilization rate (section 2.3.3.4.2).

If a block had already been assigned by a provider and the user wishes to keep this block to avoid renumbering, such block may be handed over (changing the resource holder in Lacnic’s whois database) provided that both parties agree. If additional address space has been justified and its assignment is possible, the recipient may decide whether they prefer to receive the block that is handed over plus an additional block to complete the total required space, or whether they prefer to receive a single block for the total space and proceed to renumber. Should they choose to renumber, the block that had been previously assigned must be returned within 6 months.

Additional assignments shall follow the policies set forth in Section 2.3.4 applicable to end users.

LACNIC Staff Comments

-------------------------
In our opinion, eliminating the multihoming requirement would not generate any negative impacts.
LACNIC understands the definition of "hand over" for operational purposes, is equivalent to the transfer process with the exception of point 2.3.2.18.5.

Impact of the policy on the registration system and address management
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal would not require any changes to the registration system.

LACNIC STAFF´S IMPACT ANALYSIS - Proposal LAC-2018-8 - versión 2

LACNIC Staff's Interpretation of the Proposal
---------------------------------------------
Applicability
-----------

This proposal would apply in the case of initial allocations to end users who have already been assigned resources by their providers.


Modifications to the current text
-----------------------------
The Policy Manual would be modified as follows:

o 2.3.3.4.3. Assignment size and procedure
The applicant must justify that the assigned space will be announced from the applicant’s own autonomous system to at least one other autonomous system.

The minimum size of an IPv4 assignment to an end user is a /24; the maximum size is a /20, which must be justified according to the utilization rate (section 2.3.3.4.2).

If a block had already been assigned by a provider and the user wishes to keep this block to avoid renumbering, such block may be handed over, provided that both parties agree (changing the resource holder in LACNIC’s whois database). If additional address space has been justified and its assignment is possible, the recipient may decide whether they prefer to receive the block that is handed over plus an additional block to complete the total required space, or whether they prefer to receive a single block for the total space and therefore proceed to renumber. Should they choose to renumber, the block that had been previously assigned must be returned within 6 months. Exceptionally, this period may be extended by an additional 6 months if it can be justified that there was not enough time to obtain the required resources and complete the renumbering process.

Additional assignments shall follow the policies set forth in Section 2.3.4 applicable to end users.

LACNIC Staff Comments

----------------------
It should be noted that the changes with respect to the previous version of the proposal are limited to the summary, the rational and the references, with no changes in the text of the proposal itself.

Therefore, the impact analysis prepared for version 1, the implementation of the proposal and the modification to the current text remain.

LACNIC understands that, for operational purposes, “handing over” (cession, as written in the Spanish original) is equivalent to the transfer process, with the exception of paragraph 2.3.2.18.5.
In any case, we recommend clarifying this in the text included in the manual, specifically, replacing the word “hand over” with transfers 2.3.2.18.

Finally, LACNIC understands that in order to approve an IPv4 and IPv6 request, it is necessary for the end user to request or have previously requested an ASN to LACNIC.

LACNIC understands that forcing the end user to request an ASN when not required could represent:
- An unnecessary expense for the applicant.
- An allocated resource that may not be used, therefore could be revoked due to lack of use.

Impact of the policy on the registration system and address management
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal would not require any changes to the registration system.

Privacy Policy