sig-policy January 2008

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

21 participants
14 discussions

prop-050-v002: IPv4 address transfers
by Toshiyuki Hosaka 19 Aug '08

19 Aug '08

Dear SIG members Version two of the proposal 'IPv4 address transfers' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008. The proposal's history can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-050-v002.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: - Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is unclear - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal - State whether you support or oppose the proposal Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have your say. APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Toshiyuki Hosaka Randy Bush Jian Zhang ________________________________________________________________________ prop-050-v002: IPv4 address transfers ________________________________________________________________________ Author: Geoff Huston gih(a)apnic.net Version: 2 Date: 22 January 2008 1. Introduction ---------------- This is a proposal to remove APNIC policy restrictions on the transfer of registration of IPv4 address allocations and IPv4 portable address assignments between current APNIC account holders. This proposal is a refinement of the historical resource transfer policy and applies to IPv4 resources held by current APNIC account holders. 2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------ Current APNIC policies relating to the registration of transfer of address holdings limit the eligibility of registration of transfers to those relating to mergers and acquisitions of entities that are administering an operational network. It is currently anticipated that the IPv4 unallocated address pool will be exhausted in a timeframe of between 2009 and 2011. There is a very considerable level of investment in IPv4-based services in the Asia Pacific region, and a transition to IPv6-based service delivery is likely to take longer than the remaining period of unallocated address availability. Accordingly, it is likely that demand for IPv4 addresses will continue beyond the time of unallocated address pool exhaustion, leading to a period of movement of IPv4 address blocks between address holders to meet such continuing demand for IPv4 address blocks. It is the objective of the APNIC IPv4 address registry to accurately record current address distribution information. This proposal allows APNIC to recognise the transfer of IPv4 addresses between current APNIC account holders, and places some constraints on the parties to the transfer as a precondition for the registration of the IPv4 address transfer to be undertaken by APNIC. 3. Situation in other RIRs ---------------------------- It is the understanding of the proposer that no comparable IPv4 resource transfer policy between account holders has been adopted in any other RIR. A proposal for address transfers similar to this proposal has been submitted to the RIPE community as a Policy Proposal: 2007-08: Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html 4. Details of the proposal ---------------------------- APNIC will process IPv4 address transfer requests following the adoption of this proposed policy, subject to the following conditions: Conditions on the IPv4 address block: - Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefix may be transferred. - The address block must be in the range of addresses administered by APNIC, either as part of a /8 address block assigned by the IANA to APNIC, or as part of a historically-assigned address block now administered by APNIC. - The address block must be allocated or assigned to a current APNIC account holder. - The address block will be subject to all current APNIC policies from the time of transfer. This includes address blocks previously considered to be "historical". Conditions on source of the transfer: - The source entity must be a current APNIC account holder. - The source entity must be the currently registered holder of the IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources. - The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from APNIC for a period of 24 months after the transfer. - In making any future IPv4 address resource requests to APNIC, for as long as IPv4 address resources are available from APNIC, following the expiration of this 24 month ineligibility period, the source will be required to document the reasons for the IPv4 address resource allocation. Conditions on recipient of the transfer: - The recipient entity must be a current APNIC account holder. - The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject to current APNIC policies. In particular, in any subsequent APNIC IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required to account for all IPv4 address space held, including all transferred resources. - APNIC fees payable by the recipient will be assessed on the basis of all resources held. The address transfer process: After APNIC is notified of the transfer by both the source and the recipient of the transfer: 1. APNIC will update the registration records relating to the transferred addresses. 2. APNIC will adjust the source's address holdings as of the date of transfer. In terms of membership and/or service fee calculations this shall be processed in the same manner as a return of address holdings to APNIC as of that date. 3. APNIC will adjust the recipient's address holdings to include the transferred addresses as of the date of the transfer. In terms of membership and/or service fee calculations this shall be processed in the same manner as an allocation or assignment of address holdings to the recipient as of that date. In order to preserve aggregation capabilities the transfer recipient may notify APNIC that the transferred address may be returned to the unallocated APNIC address pool, and a different address of the same size may be registered to the recipient of the transfer. This option would be available to the recipient of the transferred address, at the discretion of the recipient. 4. The following transfer details will be published by APNIC in a public log of resource transfers: - Source - Recipient - Address resources - Date of transfer Transfer fees: APNIC may charge the recipient a service fee on the transfer transaction. The transfer service fee may vary according to the total size of the address block being transferred. The transfer fee schedule shall be set initially by the APNIC Executive Council upon adoption of this policy. The transfer fee schedule will be included as part of any future review of APNIC fees and charges. 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal ------------------------------------------------- Advantages: This proposal would: - Ensure that the APNIC registry continues to reflect the current actual status of IPv4 resource holdings by APNIC account holders. - Mitigate the risks to the integrity of the network and its routing and addressing infrastructure associated with the unregistered transfers of IPv4 addresses. This proposal, by acknowledging the existence of address transfers and registering the outcomes would ensure that the APNIC address registry continues to maintain accurate data about resources and resource holders. The proposal also ensures that those parties who currently rely on the accuracy of this registration information can continue to rely on the currency and accuracy of this information in good faith. - Provide a stronger incentive for unused IPv4 address space to return to active use, helping to satisfy residual demand for IPv4 address space across the IPv6 transition. Disadvantages: - Concerns have been raised about a market-based system emerging as the only means to obtain IPv4 address space in future, and the potential for certain forms of market failures, including the possibility of hoarding, speculation and price manipulation. A number of factors mitigate these risks. As the transition to IPv6 gathers pace, a market-based value of IPv4 addresses would fall in line with the decreasing value proposition of IPv4-based services in an increasing IPv6 network. An additional constraint would apply if this policy were to be adopted while IPv4 addresses are still available from APNIC, as APNIC's established IPv4 address allocation process would continue to provide an alternative source of supply of IPv4 addresses to the industry. 6. Effect on APNIC members ---------------------------- APNIC members will have the ability to register the transfer of IPv4 address resources between APNIC account holders. 7. Effect on NIRs ------------------- This policy does not encompass IPv4 address holdings administered by NIRs, nor the transfer of resources where the source or recipient are NIR-serviced entities. (end of document)

8 20

prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24
by Toshiyuki Hosaka 26 Feb '08

26 Feb '08

Dear SIG members The proposal "Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008. The proposal's history can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-053-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: - Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is unclear - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal - State whether you support or oppose the proposal Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have your say. ________________________________________________________________________ prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24 ________________________________________________________________________ Author: Rajesh Chharia <rc(a)cjnet4u.com> Version: 1 Date: 7 January 2008 1. Introduction ---------------- This is a proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size from /21 to /24 and to create a new membership tier with an annual fee of AU$500 for members with a /24 allocation. 2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------ If a small ISP receives the current minimum IPv4 allocation size of /21, the ISP falls into the Small APNIC membership tier and must pay an annual fee of AU$3,169 [1]. In India, there are a lot of smaller ISPs who do not actually require a /21. These ISPs would be satisfied with even a /24 if it meant that the associated fees for the allocation were reduced. However, the option of an allocation of less than a /21 is not currently available, meaning that small ISPs must pay a minimum of AU$3,169 per year for an allocation. 3. Situation in other RIRs ---------------------------- The minimum IPv4 allocation sizes in other RIR regions are: - AfriNIC: /22 - ARIN: /22 for multihoming, otherwise /20 - LACNIC: /20 - RIPE: /21 4. Details of the proposal ---------------------------- It is proposed that: 1. The minimum IPv4 allocation size be changed from /21 to /24. 2. A new membership tier be introduced for /24 allocations. This new tier will have an annual fee of AU$500. 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal ------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - Small ISPs will be able to request an allocation smaller than a /21. - More small ISPs will be able to afford direct allocations from APNIC. - IP resources can be saved by reducing potential waste associated with giving a /21 to small ISPs that do not need that much space. Disadvantage: - No disadvantage to anybody. 6. Effect on APNIC members ---------------------------- A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC. 7. Effect on NIRs ------------------- No effect. References ---------- [1] APNIC member fee schedule: tiers, fees, and descriptions http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.html --- APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Toshiyuki Hosaka Randy Bush Jian Zhang

12 22

Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
by Sam Dickinson 08 Feb '08

08 Feb '08

Hello Philip On 29/01/2008, at 06:02 PM, Philip Smith wrote: > I suppose the question we don't know the answer to is "how many > organisations simply don't bother applying for IPv6 space because > they believe they MUST deploy to 200 sites within 2 years". <snip> > Has anything like this been asked in any recent member survey > carried out by KPMG? APNIC member surveys include a general question about the ease of applying for APNIC resources. In the 2007 survey, participants were asked to respond to the following statement: "1.6 The processes and requirements to obtain IPv4, IPv6 or ASN resources are clear and straightforward" Two member surveys have been conducted since the IPv6 policy document was adopted in 2002. In the responses to those surveys, the 'plan for 200 assignments' criteria was not mentioned as a barrier to applying for an IPv6 allocation. Regards _____________________________________________________________________ Samantha Dickinson email: sam(a)apnic.net Policy Officer, APNIC sip: sam(a)voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 _____________________________________________________________________

7 23

prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
by Guangliang Pan 01 Feb '08

01 Feb '08

Dear All, Respond to a question - "How many organisations have been denied v6 space under the current proposal?" There has been one IPv6 allocation request that did not initially include a plan for 200 assignments. An APNIC hostmaster contacted the organisation, which was able to include a plan for 200 assignments in its second email to APNIC. In a second case, an end site requested an IPv6 allocation before APNIC's multihoming policy for IPv6 was adopted. In this case, the organisation was not able to meet any of the criteria for an IPv6 allocation. Hope above information helps. Thanks, Guangliang ==========

6 8

Policy Proposal 056-01: IPv4 Soft Landing - a simulation analysis
by Geoff Huston 31 Jan '08

31 Jan '08

[I posted this to the ARIN PPML list yesterday, and I was then reminded that the same policy has been submitted to the APNIC policy development process, so Its relevant to theAPNIC policy discussion as well -- Geoff] I've performed some analysis on this policy proposal, attempting to understand to what extent adoption of this proposal would materially alter the consumption of the remaining IPv4 unallocated address pool. The original model I've used here is the model documented at http://ipv4.potaroo.net. This model is based on an order 2 polynomial extrapolation of the advertised address count, As noted on that page the current projections using that model are the exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 address pool as of 1 June 2011 and the exhaustion of the first RIR's unallocated address pool on the 8th August 2012. There are a lot of assumptions in this model, again as noted on the web page, but question of interest here is what would be these two dates if ALL the RIRs were to adopt this policy proposal? I've adopted a conservative approach to the simulation of this policy proposal, simplifying the proposal to be a utilization level of 80% for allocations until IANA reaches 25 /8s, when the utilization level is set of 85%, and resetting this to 90% when the IANA pool reaches 10 /8s. The first step has been to generate the following table, which says "what would be the net reduction in total allocated addresses if the 0.8 address utilisation factor was changed to a different factor value, assuming that the distribution of demand sizes observed in the past three years were to continue?" Factor afrinic apnic arin lacnic ripencc 0.80 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.81 0.994 0.994 0.993 0.994 0.993 0.82 0.987 0.988 0.988 0.989 0.988 0.83 0.981 0.982 0.981 0.982 0.981 0.84 0.973 0.975 0.975 0.976 0.974 0.85 0.970 0.969 0.969 0.968 0.969 0.86 0.961 0.963 0.963 0.961 0.963 0.87 0.956 0.956 0.956 0.957 0.957 0.88 0.950 0.950 0.951 0.949 0.950 0.89 0.943 0.944 0.943 0.945 0.943 0.90 0.935 0.938 0.937 0.936 0.937 0.91 0.931 0.932 0.931 0.934 0.932 0.92 0.922 0.923 0.924 0.927 0.925 0.93 0.921 0.920 0.920 0.918 0.920 0.94 0.913 0.911 0.912 0.914 0.913 0.95 0.903 0.906 0.907 0.904 0.906 0.96 0.905 0.900 0.900 0.901 0.901 0.97 0.897 0.894 0.892 0.895 0.894 0.98 0.890 0.885 0.886 0.889 0.888 0.99 0.882 0.883 0.882 0.878 0.881 1.00 0.877 0.875 0.875 0.876 0.875 Taking the values for the lines corresponding to the factors of 0.85 and 0.90 and plugging them in to the projection model as per the policy proposal results in the following: IANA exhaustion date: 8 July 2011 (was 1 June 2011) First RIR to exhaust its unallocated address pool: 17 October 2012 (was 8 August 2012) Like all simulations= there are a lot of assumptions at play here, and I've had to make a number of simplifications in modelling the policy as proposed, but I trust that this result provides some quantification of the impact of this proposal on the projected consumption rate of the unallocated IPv4 address pools. Thanks, Geoff Husotn APNIC

1 0

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 31 Jan '08

31 Jan '08

Dear Subscriber, This is the monthly reminder of subscription information for the sig-policy list, hosted at APNIC. For subscription information including how to un-subscribe go to http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Thank you for participating in this discussion. Kind Regards, List administrator

1 0

prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
by Randy Bush 30 Jan '08

30 Jan '08

Dear SIG members The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008. The proposal's history can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-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: - Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is unclear - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal - State whether you support or oppose the proposal Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have your say. APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Toshiyuki Hosaka Randy Bush Jian Zhang ________________________________________________________________________ prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria ________________________________________________________________________ Authors: Toshiyuki Hosaka, JPNIC <hosaka(a)nic.ad.jp> Izumi Okutani, JPNIC <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> Version: 1 Date: 25 January 2008 1. Introduction --------------- This proposal is intended to enable current LIRs with existing IPv4 allocations to receive the IPv6 allocation they need, yet maintain the criteria which is still effective for organizations without IPv4 address allocations. It seeks to ease current IPv6 initial allocation criteria by adding one condition which enables current LIRs with IPv4 allocations to receive IPv6 initial allocations without a plan for making 200 assignments. 2. Summary of the current problem --------------------------------- Current IPv6 policy requires LIRs to provide a plan for 200 assignments before they can qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space. Some JPNIC members have pointed out that having a fixed number of planned assignments in this criteria makes it feel like an obligation that must be met. Therefore, it is becoming a barrier preventing LIRs from requesting IPv6 allocations. As the exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool approaches and IPv6 adoption is promoted, the plan for 200 assignments is an unnecessary barrier to IPv6 allocation requests that should be removed. 3. Situation in other RIRs ----------------------- All RIRs except APNIC no longer require a mandatory plan for 200 assignments. The current IPv6 initial allocation criteria (in relation to assignment requirements) in each region are below: - ARIN ...be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within five years. - AfriNIC ...show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to end sites in the AfriNIC region within twelve months. The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within twelve months. - LACNIC ...Offer IPv6 services to clients or entities owns/related (including departments and/or sites) physically located within the region covered by LACNIC within a period not longer than 24 months. - RIPE NCC ...have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years. 4. Details of the proposal ---------------------------- It is proposed that criteria d. in section 5.1.1. 'Initial allocation criteria' be changed from: - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years. To: - Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organizations within two years, OR; - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR AND have a plan for making assignments and/or sub-allocations to other organizations within two years. 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal ------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - The criteria will allow the intended target of IPv6 allocations -- LIRs with IPv4 allocations -- to request and receive an allocation more easily. - The criteria will be consistent with all the other RIRs who do not make the 200 assignment requirement a mandatory condition. Disadvantages: - None. 6. Effect on APNIC members ---------------------------- APNIC members that have received IPv4 allocations can more easily request an IPv6 address allocation. 7. Effect on NIRs ------------------- NIRs are expected to adopt this policy.

8 14

Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
by Tim Jones 29 Jan '08

29 Jan '08

Leo wrote: >More importantly, how many have not requested IPv6 space because they >misunderstood the text to mean that they would not qualify? Isn't one of the primary roles of an NIR to educate their members on interpreting policy correctly? Cheers, Tim. Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail

2 2

prop-058-v001: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space, among LIRs
by Randy Bush 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

[ posted by co-chair as chair is a co-author ] Dear SIG members The proposed policy 'Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during the Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008. The proposal's history can be found at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-058-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: - Ask the proposer questions if anything in the proposal is unclear - Point out advantages and disadvantages you see in the proposal - State whether you support or oppose the proposal Mailing list discussions will be taken into account when the proposal is discussed at the upcoming APNIC meeting. So please make sure you have your say. APNIC Policy SIG Chairs Toshiyuki Hosaka Randy Bush Jian Zhang ________________________________________________________________________ prop-058-v001: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs ________________________________________________________________________ Author: Shirou Niinobe <nin(a)syce.net> Co-authors: Takeshi TOMOCHIKA Jiro YAMAGUCHI Dai NISHINO Hiroyuki ASHIDA Akira NAKAGAWA Toshiyuki HOSAKA Version: 1 Date: 28 January 2008 1. Introduction ---------------- This proposal is to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs in AP region, for the effective use of the IPv4 address space. 2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------ LIRs providing firewall and IP connectivity services behind NATs using RFC 1918 address space face potential address space collisions between end user networks that are using the same RFC 1918 address ranges. This is preventing LIRs and their end users from benefitting from the security and efficient IPv4 address use that firewalls and NATs can provide. Instead, some LIRs are applying (and receiving) global IPv4 address allocations to providing firewall and IP connectivity services. Furthermore, if LIRs assign only IPv6 addresses to end users, they cannot communicate with non-IPv6 ready site. By having IPv4 shared use address space as an alternative to RFC 1918 address ranges, LIRs would not need to request global IPv4 allocations to achieve their aims. Therefore LIRs can continue to provide IP connectivity after IPv4 free pool exhaustion. 3. Situation in other RIRs ---------------------------- No RIR currently has address space for this purpose. On 3 August 2007, the following Internet Draft was submitted to the IETF: - Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use" to "Limited Use for Large Private Internets" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wilson-class-e-01.txt 4. Details of the proposal ---------------------------- 4.1. It is proposed that: - APNIC create IPv4 shared use address space for use by LIRs in the AP region - APNIC reserve one /8 for this purpose 4.2. Conditions for use of this shared use address space are: - All LIRs in the AP region can use the address space - LIRs can choose a range within the shared space for their use without needing to apply to APNIC or NIRs - LIRs do not need to register use of their chosen shared use range - Global/regional address uniqueness is not guaranteed - End-users cannot use this proposed address space and should continue to use the existing RFC 1918 address ranges. - LIRs are free to assign this shared use addresses to their customers. - Use of shared use address space will not be included when calculating APNIC fees 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal ------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - It promotes effective use of global IPv4 address space, as the largest LIRs will use this proposed address space rather than global addresses - By using this shared use address space, LIRs can continue to provide IPv4 connectivity even after the IPv4 address exhaustion - LIRs can provide IPv4 connectivity by dual-stacking shared use addresses with IPv6 addresses. This is important as we currently do not have high-throughput IPv6-IPv4 translators for commercial use Disadvantages: - Concerns may be raised that global IPv4 addresses that can be allocated to LIRs diminishes by one /8 (however, in the long run, this proposal will save more address than that space) 6. Effect on APNIC members ---------------------------- APNIC members will have the option of both IPv4 global address space and shared use address space 7. Effect on NIRs ------------------- NIRs are expected to adopt the same policy at their discretion.

4 3

Re: [sig-policy] prop-057-v001: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria
by Tim Jones 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Che-Hoo CHENG wrote: >At least, I see one problem with the existing policy, i.e. if I'm an end user network of IPv6 (IPv4 too) and I >may not do any further assignment but I need to do multihoming, I can only get a /48 portable assignment. >However, some IPv6 networks filter out announcements longer than /35 (or other prefix length). What can I >do now? > >This proposal does solve this problem (or if there is change to portable assignment policy). Does it? Unless I am reading the wrong document, the proposal adds the following OR condition to the existing 200 assignments requirement: "OR; - Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an RIR/NIR AND have a plan for making assignments and/or sub-allocations to other organizations within two years." The way I read the above is the LIR must still make IPv6 assignments and/or sub-allocations. I guess another way of reading it is that the LIR must plan to make IPv4 assignments, but what is that condition doing in an IPv6 document? If this proposal is adopted, would anyone like to take a wager on how long it will take before another proposal is put forward, claiming that the above discriminates in favour of existing ISPs to the detriment of new players in the market. Is there really a problem here that we are fixing, or are we just arguing over semantics? Cheers, Tim. Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail

4 5

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy January 2008