sig-policy April 2009

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

14 participants
6 discussions

FW: Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
by cwkuo 30 Apr '09

30 Apr '09

I also agree with Terry and Ji-Young. The prop-50 doesn't justify use of transferred space using the allocation and assignment policies and restrictions, it will conflict with the goals of address management of Conservation and Fairness (You can see at "5 Goals of address space management", http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html ). Because prop-50 doesn't have the mechanism of the justifications and restrictions, it will cause the backdoor of stockpile of IP address. On the other hand, APNIC members get IP address from APNIC allocation will need to be justified, but prop-50 doesn't need to be justified, it will cause the issue of fairness. Best regards, Sheng-Wei Kuo -----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Ji-Young Lee (???) Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:57 AM To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE I agree with Terry If prop-050 is implemented without any supplemental policies, it would be very vulnerable to any attempts to stockpile ipv4 without any actual demand and accelerate free pool runout. regards, ji-young ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Manderson" <terry(a)terrym.net> To: "Sam Dickinson" <sam(a)apnic.net> Cc: "Randy Bush" <randy(a)psg.com>; <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE > Sam and all, > > Very helpful thanks.. > > So if the consensus is maintained with Prop-050 may I respectfully > recommend the EC and Secretariat to keep to a 6 month (or longer) > implementation time to allow the machine to churn through Prop-071/072 > and meet up with prop-050 at implementation if possible. > > I accept this appears as a slippery slope. And if prop-050 needs such > a crutch then maybe policy itself is immature, needs work and we as a > community might consider to not maintain the consensus call. > > Terry > > On 16/04/2009, at 12:07 PM, Sam Dickinson wrote: > >> Hello Terry >> >> You are correct in remembering that the Secretariat had posted to >> this list that if a proposal like prop-050 were to become policy, it >> would take six months after EC to implement it. As stated in that >> earlier post, that timeline could change a little once we create a >> detailed implementation plan. Implementation usually takes around 3 >> months, but can happen sooner or later, depending on the >> complexities of implementation. We have had policies implemented >> within days of EC endorsement (for example, prop-041) and policies >> that have taken as long as 11 months to implement (for example, >> prop-007). >> >> I hope that helps. >> >> Regards >> Sam >> >> On 16/4/09 10:10 AM, Terry Manderson wrote: >>> Before I make any comments regarding the potential for a "gap" in >>> regulation (and people capitalising on it) between the >>> implementation of Prop-050 and the possible implementation of >>> Prop-071/072 (assuming consensus) perhaps we might consider the >>> timelines for the secretariat to implement and enact the policies. >>> From what I recall APNIC said it would take 6 months to implement >>> Prop-50 after EC endorsement. >>> I'm guessing that since Prop-071/072 are modifications to Prop-50 >>> in re-application/allocation times (in essence) I would think that >>> if consensus for them was reached at APNIC28, they could be >>> implemented immediately after EC endorsement. >>> So my presumption is that due to the 6 months implementation time >>> of Prop-50. Prop071 and 072 could be implemented at the same time. >>> (*) >>> (*) Yes, this means that prop071/072 are in a win/loss state - if >>> they don't reach consensus at APNIC28 they are pretty well done for. >>> APNIC secretariat, can you please clarify if my reading of the >>> timelines is correct and provide the exact dates when items fall due? >>> Cheers >>> Terry >>> On 16/04/2009, at 8:43 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>>> FWIW, I share these concerns. >>>> >>>> -Scott >>>> >>>> On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would >>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> express our concern about prop-050. >>>>>>> this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached? >>>>>> Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE >>>>>> APWG >>>>>> mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :) >>>>> so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for >>>>> your >>>>> input. >>>>> >>>>> randy >>>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management >>>>> policy * >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>>> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management >>>> policy * >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management >>> policy * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> >> -- >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> Samantha Dickinson email: sam(a)apnic.net >> Policy Development Manager, APNIC sip: sam(a)voip.apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

6 5

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 30 Apr '09

30 Apr '09

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

Re: [sig-policy] FW: Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
by Terence Zhang Yinghao 30 Apr '09

30 Apr '09

Since many concerns are raised about prop-050 without supplemental policies, and we also understand it will take 3-6 months to implement prop-050, but prop-071/072 maynot reach consensus soon enough to meet up with the implementation of prop-050. Can we consider the proposal to take effect when supplemental proposal like prop-071/072 reach consensus? Best Regards Terence Zhang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Manderson" <terry(a)terrym.net> To: <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] FW: Prop-050 concerns from RIPE >I think I should take some time to clarify my position. > > I am not against prop-50. nor am I against prop-071 and prop-072 > > What concerns me is a "time gap" in regulation. eg if prop-50 gets > implemented, people acquire address space under prop-50, and then at a > later stage prop-071 and 072 are implemented thus creating a few > months of de-regulation gap. That is just an in-consistent position > for any sort of regulatory body. (and would be a headache for the > titles office) > > I personally would prefer that prop-50 had the regulatory controls in > place with prop-071 and 072 until the last /8 is reached (and only > until). However if the policy proposals cannot merge and become > effective the same time then I'm perfectly happy to see prop-50 > progress as is. > > In my opinion the SIG should provide every opportunity for 071 and 072 > to either reach consensus at the next member meeting or be dropped. If > those two proposals do not reach consensus at the next meeting then it > would be fairly clear to me that we should accept that the days of v4 > regulation in the AP region have passed and it is time for the > community, through business processes, to handle the final > distribution of v4 to those players that are desperate for it. > > If, and only if, the APNIC EC and secretariat CANNOT provide the > opportunity for the 071 or 072 proposals to be in effect in unison > with 050, then I would suggest the options are: > - that the individual proposals 071/072 are dropped asap - so prop 50 > can move on > - if the policy SIG is desperate for the regulation of prop-071/072 > in prop-050 then the SIG co-chairs and EC might like to consider that > consensus wasn't maintained > > Does this clarify my position? I see transfers critically important in > the future of the 'net for a great number of reasons - many of which > have already been covered on this list at at the meeting by several > respondents. > > Terry > > On 30/04/2009, at 2:30 PM, cwkuo wrote: > >> I also agree with Terry and Ji-Young. >> >> The prop-50 doesn't justify use of transferred space using the >> allocation >> and assignment policies and restrictions, it will conflict with the >> goals of >> address management of Conservation and Fairness (You can see at "5 >> Goals of >> address space management", >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html ). Because prop-50 >> doesn't have the mechanism of the justifications and restrictions, >> it will >> cause the backdoor of stockpile of IP address. On the other hand, >> APNIC >> members get IP address from APNIC allocation will need to be >> justified, but >> prop-50 doesn't need to be justified, it will cause the issue of >> fairness. >> >> Best regards, >> Sheng-Wei Kuo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net >> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Ji-Young >> Lee (???) >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:57 AM >> To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE >> >> I agree with Terry >> >> If prop-050 is implemented without any supplemental policies, >> it would be very vulnerable to any attempts to stockpile ipv4 >> without any >> actual demand and accelerate free pool runout. >> >> regards, >> ji-young >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Terry Manderson" <terry(a)terrym.net> >> To: "Sam Dickinson" <sam(a)apnic.net> >> Cc: "Randy Bush" <randy(a)psg.com>; <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> >> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:54 PM >> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE >> >> >>> Sam and all, >>> >>> Very helpful thanks.. >>> >>> So if the consensus is maintained with Prop-050 may I respectfully >>> recommend the EC and Secretariat to keep to a 6 month (or longer) >>> implementation time to allow the machine to churn through >>> Prop-071/072 >>> and meet up with prop-050 at implementation if possible. >>> >>> I accept this appears as a slippery slope. And if prop-050 needs such >>> a crutch then maybe policy itself is immature, needs work and we as a >>> community might consider to not maintain the consensus call. >>> >>> Terry >>> >>> On 16/04/2009, at 12:07 PM, Sam Dickinson wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Terry >>>> >>>> You are correct in remembering that the Secretariat had posted to >>>> this list that if a proposal like prop-050 were to become policy, it >>>> would take six months after EC to implement it. As stated in that >>>> earlier post, that timeline could change a little once we create a >>>> detailed implementation plan. Implementation usually takes around 3 >>>> months, but can happen sooner or later, depending on the >>>> complexities of implementation. We have had policies implemented >>>> within days of EC endorsement (for example, prop-041) and policies >>>> that have taken as long as 11 months to implement (for example, >>>> prop-007). >>>> >>>> I hope that helps. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Sam >>>> >>>> On 16/4/09 10:10 AM, Terry Manderson wrote: >>>>> Before I make any comments regarding the potential for a "gap" in >>>>> regulation (and people capitalising on it) between the >>>>> implementation of Prop-050 and the possible implementation of >>>>> Prop-071/072 (assuming consensus) perhaps we might consider the >>>>> timelines for the secretariat to implement and enact the policies. >>>>> From what I recall APNIC said it would take 6 months to implement >>>>> Prop-50 after EC endorsement. >>>>> I'm guessing that since Prop-071/072 are modifications to Prop-50 >>>>> in re-application/allocation times (in essence) I would think that >>>>> if consensus for them was reached at APNIC28, they could be >>>>> implemented immediately after EC endorsement. >>>>> So my presumption is that due to the 6 months implementation time >>>>> of Prop-50. Prop071 and 072 could be implemented at the same time. >>>>> (*) >>>>> (*) Yes, this means that prop071/072 are in a win/loss state - if >>>>> they don't reach consensus at APNIC28 they are pretty well done >>>>> for. >>>>> APNIC secretariat, can you please clarify if my reading of the >>>>> timelines is correct and provide the exact dates when items fall >>>>> due? >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Terry >>>>> On 16/04/2009, at 8:43 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>>>>> FWIW, I share these concerns. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> express our concern about prop-050. >>>>>>>>> this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached? >>>>>>>> Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE >>>>>>>> APWG >>>>>>>> mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some >>>>>>>> concerns :) >>>>>>> so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> randy >>>>>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management >>>>>>> policy * >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>>>>> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >>>>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management >>>>>> policy * >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>>>> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >>>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management >>>>> policy * >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>>> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>>> Samantha Dickinson email: >>>> sam(a)apnic.net >>>> Policy Development Manager, APNIC sip: >>>> sam(a)voip.apnic.net >>>> http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 >>>> 3100 >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management >> policy * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

1 0

Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
by Sander Steffann 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

Hello sig-policy, As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050. We understand that the proposal as it is currently written and is in last call, requires no justification from an organisation that will receive a transfer from another organisation. It also states that the implementation of the proposal, if accepted, is immediate. In other words, as soon as the APNIC community accepts the proposal and the secretariat implements it, it will be a policy in effect. We know that there are other policy proposals (prop-071 and 072) to prevent abuse of prop-050, but we are still concerned about this because of the possibilities of abuse before prop-071 and 072 are implemented (assuming they reach consensus) One case that worries us is the case where Organisation A receives an allocation from APNIC, transfers it to Organisation B, request another allocation from APNIC, transfer it again, etc. This will result in increased usage rate of the APNIC address pools. As a result APNIC will need to request more address space from IANA, and IANA will run out of IPv4 addresses quicker. This kind of hoarding has effects outside of the APNIC region. It might never happen, but in theory someone could do this if I understand the policy correctly. The possibility of draining the IANA pool is what worries us. We also understand that the current text of the proposal enables Inter- RIR transfers. Prop-050 states that this will happen "following the policies of all the respective RIRs". We are not clear on how APNIC will implement this and what effects this will have on other RIRs. We don't have an Inter-RIR transfer policy at this time. What would happen (for example) if an organisation approaches APNIC with a request to transfer RIPE address space to an APNIC RIR. Can APNIC still prevent that transfer from happening? If not, this would make it possible that space from other regions is hoarded in the APNIC service region. Inter-RIR transfers is not even a concept yet that is discussed in other regions. Because it is "between" RIRs, we believe it is a matter that requires coordination and discussion beyond a specific region. We think a globally-coordinated policy discussion will be best to have for this kind of topic. I know that a lot of these issues have already been raised on the mailing list in the past months, but I hope you can understand our concern. Implementing prop-050 before prop-071 and/or prop-072 can be implemented leaves a big loop hole that could have effects outside the APNIC region. Thank you for listening, Sander Steffann RIPE Address Policy Working Group co-chair

8 17

New thoughts on 050
by Skeeve Stevens 17 Apr '09

17 Apr '09

I am wondering. 050 is about resource transfers. But does anyone have an opinion on resource leasing? Example... I enter into a private agreement with a party to lease them an AS and the rights to route (or attempt to do so) a /21, and charge them a yearly fee. 050 stops transfers, but who cares about 050 if there are easier, simpler ways to accomplish the same thing - but better... I still own it in the end. You could even have a broker that leased lots of excess address space from members for a certain period, and based on the scarcity, the size of the resource, then sub-leased it to different parties at rates according to demand at the time - kind of like the real estate rental market. I guess the concept of leasing address space is already a standard one as most ISP's I know, and in ones I have built, we have levied a fee on the end customer for larger than the default allocation as a cost recovery method of our APNIC fees in having them in the first place. Thoughts? -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there? Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.

3 2

Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
by Leo Vegoda 17 Apr '09

17 Apr '09

Hi Terence, On 24/03/2009 6:03, "Terence Zhang Yinghao" <zhangyinghao(a)cnnic.cn> wrote: > > I've been trying to think through examples of unofficial markets for things > > that are not allowed. Most of them seem to have higher prices than you would > > see in a regulated, official market. Can you explain why you think people > > would be willing to charge a lower price for something that was not allowed, > > rather than charging a premium? > > > I have similar question in mind, why people will pay a premium for > addresses while they can get it from RIR through allocation process? One example that springs to mind is single-homed organisations that want a small portable assignment. They don't appear to qualify under the current IPv4 policy but might well decide that buying an assignment assures them of IPv4 space in the years to come and removes the ongoing cost of renumbering every time they change ISP. > > You seem to have ignored the NIR's and the RIR's role in this. Do you not > > have confidence in NIR's and RIR's abilities to correctly evaluate requests > > that have been inflated? > > > I respect your experience in IP resources allocation and management, > and I also believe our hostmasters are perfectly capable. I'm glad to hear that both the NIR's and RIR's staff will not have problems correctly evaluating inflated IPv4 requests. It is good to know that on reflection this risk is not a real concern. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda

3 2

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy April 2009