Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring address space

[Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab@lahai.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hi,

I support this proposal.

thanks
 -gaurab



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-propuesta-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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkm6JMcACgkQSo7fU26F3X1HwwCeMaxtgrhHuxjPxqvVhn1rxU9d
6gIAn1vSpZn2cyVUYsxyLprVxMHjSDcx
=sOwc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----