Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits whentransferringaddress space

[<myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp>]

Dear John and all,

> It was not my intention to point my questions at any 
> particular person.

Even if so, your comment is very helpful to understand bad side effect of my idea.
Thank you very much.

> It is not clear to me that refusing to record a transfer changes the  
> rate of allocation from the free pool.  It might be useful to write  
> out explicitly the chain of implication from the refusal to 
> the effect  
> on allocation.  Then we could compare that to the potential harm of  
> trying to establish a system of regulation on transfers.

Originally, I was not trying to refuse to record a transfer, but now I understand it may refuse.
Give me some time to consider about this point....

Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schnizlein [mailto:schnizlein@isoc.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:05 PM
> To: sig-policy@apnic.net
> Cc: 山西　正人(ネットワーク本部)
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits 
> whentransferringaddress space
> 
> It was not my intention to point my questions at any 
> particular person.
> 
> >> What would be the effect of a policy to refuse to record a transfer
> >> of which both the relinquishing and acquiring party agree?
> >
> > It can prevent that remaining IPv4 address space in IANA will be  
> > consumed very rapidly.
> 
> It is not clear to me that refusing to record a transfer changes the  
> rate of allocation from the free pool.  It might be useful to write  
> out explicitly the chain of implication from the refusal to 
> the effect  
> on allocation.  Then we could compare that to the potential harm of  
> trying to establish a system of regulation on transfers.
> 
> > And it is a intention of prop-072, isn't it?.
> 
> I don't think so.  My reading of prop-72 is that it constrains  
> allocations from the RIR's free pool rather than attempting to  
> regulate the transfers.  Quote from the proposal:
> 
> 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.
> 
> >> Would it be  good for the Internet as a whole to have
> >> this information not recorded?
> >> Or do you want some organization other than the RIR for
> >> one of the parties to provide this kind of record?
> >
> > I'm afraid that you misunderstood my position.
> > I'm supporting prop-050, so I want to avoid such situation, 
> of course.
> 
> I am sorry if my questions appeared specific to your position.
> 
> It seems to me that the most likely result of refusal of RIRs to  
> register transfers is not that transfers will not happen, but that  
> someone else will be found to register them if registration 
> of who is  
> authorized to use an address block is necessary.
> 
> >> Policies that constrain what the RIR allocates from its 
> pool seem to
> >> risk fewer unintended consequences than attempting to influence the
> >> behavior of other parties.
> >
> > So, your point is "Even if we will restrict transfer of newly  
> > allocated address space,
> > somebody will transfer it immediately in underground. In 
> such case,  
> > information of such address
> > space is not recorded correctly on registry." Is it correct  
> > understanding?
> 
> If I understand your description, yes.  Evidence that transfers have  
> already taken place prior to transfer policy - not to mention 
> prior to  
> exhaustion of the free pool(s) - has been shown here and in other  
> RIR's policy discussions.
> 
> More than just observing this fact, my goal is to remind people that  
> the behavior we can control with these policies is that of the RIR,  
> not that of other parties.  Policies that attempt to control others  
> are likely to have different - and worse - effects than intended.
> 
> John
>