[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits whentransferringaddress space
Masato sama, and all,
My question is, what action will Apnic take specifically when
cheeting is reported and recognized?
myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp wrote:
> Dear Terry and all,
>
> > Although the observation is 'where there is a will, there is a way'
> > applies and if some entity/person wishes to open and close companies
> > and APNIC accounts for the sake of brokering fresh space from APNIC
> > for transfers there is nothing you can do to stop it.
>
> I agree that there is no way which can completely prevent all cheating,
> but also I think we should decrease its possibility and discourage it as much as possible.
>
> Regarding this proposal, while there is no "guard" for above problem in current revision,
> my idea can at least decrease and discourage it.
> So, I can't understand well why you are giving it up so quickly.
>
> Or, is there any hidden disadvantage which I have not yet aware for my idea?
>
> 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
> > Terry Manderson
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:26 AM
> > To: sig-policy@apnic.net SIG
> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when
> > transferringaddress space
> >
> > I support this.
> >
> > Although the observation is 'where there is a will, there is a way'
> > applies and if some entity/person wishes to open and close companies
> > and APNIC accounts for the sake of brokering fresh space from APNIC
> > for transfers there is nothing you can do to stop it.
> >
> > But in an effort to regulate the honest - I see no drama with this
> > proposal.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> > On 10/03/2009, at 7:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > * 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
> >
> * 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
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827
