[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferringaddress space
Hi Masato,
On 12/03/2009, at 11:34 PM, <myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp> <myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp
> wrote:
No. The reason why I want to prevent it is that it may runs out
remaining IPv4 address
in IANA more earlyer than Geoff's forecast.
Actually I welcome it. Sooner rather than later please. :)
(provided said v4 addresses go to those who can use them.)
So, my intention is exacyly same as prop-072's one.
I'm NOT saying that making money nor brokering is bad.
Ack :-)
If this policy will acceralate running out of IPv4 address in IANA,
it will have huge impact
for many stakeholder, so I'm afraid that many people will complain
to address trasnfer itself.
Since I'm strongley supporing address transfer itself, I want to
avoid such situation.
I basically agree with you, but I also think APNIC should have some
responsibility
not to accelerate running out remaining IPv4 address space in IANA.
True, but also not try to restrict the supply either.
And, it is a intention of prop-072, isn't it?
I can't understand why you oppose my idea even though both of my
idea and prop-072 has same intention.
.. perhaps lost in translation.
My position is:
- I support prop-050 (address transfer itself)
- I support prop-072's intention, but current policy has some
pithole which multiple paper company can consume
remaining IPv4 address space in IANA very rapidly.
So, I'm just proposing modification for section 4 from
""IPv4 address transfers", are not eligible for APNIC IPv4
assignments and/or allocations for two years"
to
"Allocated resource within x months is not eligible for transfer"
That's all.
Provided that only applies up until the last /8 - I could go along
with that.
Terry
