Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation

David Conrad drc at
Fri Sep 11 20:23:57 UTC 2009


On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
>> ??
> The blog posting implies it:
> "AfriNIC and LACNIC have fewest IPv4 /8s and service the regions  
> with the most developing economies. We decided that those RIRs  
> should have four of the easiest to use /8s reserved for them."

The "economies" term used here is essentially synonymous with  
"countries".  The decision IANA made (which is, of course, always  
reversible until the last /8s are allocated) is in keeping with RIR  
practices regarding treatment of LACNIC and AfriNIC in global  
allocation issues.

> There is also a possible unintended consequence. If v4 address space  
> markets do end up being legitimized (I do believe that they will  
> FWIW)  ICANN is in effect declaring one class of space more valuable  
> than another an arbitrarily assigning that value.

ICANN is not declaring value of anything.  All we are doing is trying  
to distribute the remaining /8s in a way that can be publicly verified  
that we have no bias in how /8s are allocated at the same time as  
trying to minimize the pain experienced by the recipients the /8s.

>> Or are you unhappy that LACNIC and AfriNIC have 2 /8s from the  
>> least tainted pools?
> There is currently a global policy that the RIR's and ICANN agreed  
> to that defines the allocation of /8's from IANA to RIR's. That  
> policy doesnt include a set-aside and I think that arbitrarily  
> adding one is not in the spirit of cooperation.

The global policy for IPv4 address allocation does not specify how  
IANA selects the addresses it assigns to the RIRs.  IANA has used  
different algorithms in the past.  What IANA is doing now is described  
in the blog posting I referenced.

> It's possible that not everything is above the table as well.

Actually, no.  The whole point in publishing the algorithm IANA is  
using in allocating /8s is to allow anyone to verify for themselves we  
are following that algorithm.

> I think that the perception is reality here though. ICANN has  
> arbitrarily created process that impacts RIR's unequally. To me,  
> that's unfair.

As stated, we followed existing RIR practices regarding treatment of  
LACNIC and AfriNIC.  Oddly, the RIR CEOs were happy with the algorithm  
when we asked them about it.

> Question is -- do a few /8's really matter?

Sure.  An they'll matter more as the IPv4 pool approaches exhaustion.   
That's why IANA has published the algorithm by which allocations are  
made.  The goal is to forestall (or at least help defend from) the  
inevitable accusations of evil doing folks accuse ICANN of all the  
time (e.g., your message).


More information about the NANOG mailing list