[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits whentransferringaddress space
Dear all,
I'm still considering about this side effect of my idea,
but I'm also afraid that prop-071 has similar side effect.
Could somebody who are supporting prop-071 clarify this point?
(I'm neutral for prop-071, currently)
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:27 AM
> To: John Schnizlein; 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
>
> 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
> >
>
