[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferringaddress space
Dear Randy, Phil and all,
I cannot support this proposal with current text since it doesn't prevent following problem
(which I mentioned yesterday) and remaining IPv4 space in IANA still may run-out more quickly.
>Backdoor scenario:
>1. start up company-A
>2. become an APNIC member and request IPv4 address space
>3. sell whole of allocated address space and unsubscribe from APNIC
>4. start up company-B and do same things
>If this cheater can find enough number of hostmasters for each company,
>he/she can get and sell address space continuously.
Even though it is a little bit different from other RIR's policy, I believe that
"Allocated resource within 24 months is not eligible for transfer" is better than current one
since it can prevent both of current prop-072's problem and above problem.
So, if the author will include this point in next revision, I will support it.
(Or, is it better to make another proposal by myself?)
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 6:18 PM
> To: sig-policy@apnic.net
> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when
> transferringaddress space
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> The policy proposal 'Reapplication limits when transferring address
> space' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
> presented
> at the Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 24-28 August
> 2009. The
> proposal's history can be found at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-072-v001.html
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing
> list before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is
> an important part of the policy development process. We encourage
> you to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
> so, tell the community about your situation.
> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> effective?
>
> Randy, Jian, and Ching-Heng
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
>
> prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring address space
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
>
>
> Author: Philip Smith
> pfs@cisco.com
>
> Version: 1
>
> Date: 10 March 2009
>
> 1. Introduction
> ----------------
>
> This policy proposal seeks to supplement prop-050, "IPv4 address
> transfers", by not permitting organisations who have transferred IPv4
> address from obtaining more address space from APNIC for a
> period of 24
> months after the transfer.
>
>
> 2. Summary of current problem
> ------------------------------
>
> Prop-050, "IPv4 address transfers", as it stands at time of writing,
> places no restriction on the organisation transferring IPv4 address
> space to return to APNIC for additional IPv4 address space.
>
> This gives organisations the opportunity to transfer their
> IPv4 address
> space to another organisation, and return to APNIC almost immediately
> with a fully justified application for additional resources.
> This means
> that organisations could rapidly deplete the remaining IPv4
> pool, to the
> detriment of the entire industry during the IPv4 runout period.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ---------------------------
>
> RIPE NCC
>
> The transfer policy adopted by RIPE only places no limits on any
> organisation transferring address space to a third party
> from going
> back to the RIPE NCC for further IPv4 address space. See:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html
>
> ARIN
>
> The transfer policy notes that transfers of address space between
> organisations are only considered if the originating
> organisation has
> made a complete transfer of assets to the recipient (such as a
> liquidation of the originating organisation). See:
>
> http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_8.html
>
> LACNIC
>
> LACNIC is currently discussing a transfer proposal:
>
> LAC-2009-04 Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region
>
> http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propues
> ta-en.pdf
>
> AfriNIC has no transfer policy.
>
>
> 4. Details of the proposal
> ---------------------------
>
> It is proposed that organisations disposing of their space using the
> transfer policy described in prop-050, "IPv4 address
> transfers", are not
> eligible for APNIC IPv4 assignments and/or allocations for two years.
>
>
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> 5.1 Advantages
>
> - Organisations transferring address space to third
> parties can not
> go back to APNIC and request additional IPv4 address
> space for a
> period of 24 months. This prevents organisations from making
> frequent and repeated requests to APNIC, and then transferring
> the address space elsewhere.
>
> 5.2 Disadvantages
>
> - None.
>
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC Members
> ---------------------------
>
> The proposal impacts all APNIC members in that they now cannot receive
> more address space from the APNIC free pool for a full 24 months after
> they have made a transfer to another organisation.
>
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> ------------------
>
> The proposal has no direct impact on NIRs, but impacts members of NIRs
> in the same way it impacts APNIC members.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
