sig-policy October 2016

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

8 participants
8 discussions

Public Safety and Accuracy of IP Address WHOIS - at RIPE 73
by Paul Wilson 16 Jan '17

16 Jan '17

Dear Colleagues, For those who took an interest in the presentation on “Public Safety and Accuracy of IP Address WHOIS” which was given at APNIC 42 in Colombo, there has been a similar presentation today at the RIPE 73 meeting in Madrid. In this case a much more detailed case study was given, to show the concerns of the law enforcement community. Presentation file is here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/presentations/54-Presentation_RIPE_NCC_73_Madrid_-_… Video archive is here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1435 All the best, Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg(a)apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg

2 1

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 01 Nov '16

01 Nov '16

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-116 returned to author for further consideration
by Masato Yamanishi 10 Oct '16

10 Oct '16

Dear colleagues Version 2 of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 42 Open Policy Meeting. The Policy SIG Chair returned the proposal to the author for further work. The author may propose an amended version of the proposal at a future meeting. Proposal details ---------------- The proposal seeks to ensure the distribution of the 'Final /8' (103/8) block is consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new entrants to the industry. Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to the APNIC 42 meeting archive, are available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-116 Regards Masato and Sumon ------------------------------------------------------- prop-116-v002: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki(a)syce.net 1. Problem statement -------------------- There are a lot of transfers of IPv4 address blocks from 103/8 happening, both within the APNIC region and among RIRs. Then number of transfer from 103/8 block are about 200, which is about 12% of the total number of transfers. This looks so hight high, since APNIC manages about 40/8. And based on the information provided by APNIC secretariat, number of transfers from the 103/8 block are increasing year by year. Provided by George Kuo on the sig-policy ML at 8th September 2016: 1) M&A transfers containing 103/8 space +------+-----------+-----------+- | | Total | Number of | | Year | Transfers | /24s | +------+-----------+-----------+- | 2011 | 3 | 12 | | 2012 | 10 | 46 | | 2013 | 18 | 66 | | 2014 | 126 | 498 | | 2015 | 147 | 573 | | 2016 | 45 | 177 | +------+-----------+------------+- 2) Market transfers containing 103/8 space +------+-----------+-----------+ | | Total | Number of | | Year | Transfers | /24s | +------+-----------+-----------+ | 2011 | 2 | 2 | | 2012 | 21 | 68 | | 2013 | 16 | 61 | | 2014 | 25 | 95 | | 2015 | 67 | 266 | | 2016 | 56 | 206 | +------+-----------+-----------+ And also, transfers from the 103/8 block include: - Take place within 1 year of distribution, or - Multiple blocks to a single organization in case of beyond 1 year. Further, there is a case where a single organization have received 12 blocks transfers from 103 range. see: https://www.apnic.net/transfer-resources/transfer-logs >From these figures, it is quite likely that substantial number of 103/8 blocks are being used for transfer purpose. This conflicts with the concept of distribution of 103/8 block (prop-062), which is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address blocks for new comers. prop-062: Use of final /8 https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- When stated problem is solved, distribution from 103/8 block will be consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new entrants to the industry. Without the policy change, substantial portion of 103/8 blocks will be consumed for transfer purpose. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- RIPE-NCC has been discussing to prohibit transfer under the final /8 address block. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Prohibit transfer IPv4 address under /8 address block (103/8). If the address block allocated to a LIR is not needed any more, it have to return to APNIC to allocate to another organization. In the case of transfers due to M&A, merged organization can have up to /22 IPv4 address in the 103/8 block. The 103/8 IPv4 address more than /22 have to return to APNIC to allocate to another organization. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: - It makes 103/8 blocks available according to the original purpose, as distribution for new entrants (rather than being consumed for transfer purpose) - IPv4 addresses under final /8 are not transferred to outside APNIC. - By prohibiting transfer them, it is possible to keep one /22 for each LIRs state, which is fair for all LIRs. Disadvantages: None. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------ - LIRs cannot transfer address blocks under 103/8. No big impact while they use it. - Organizations which needs to receive transferred IPv4 can continue to do so, outside 103/8 blocks (which should be made available for new entrants) 7. References -------------

1 0

Proposal to revise SIG Guidelines returned to author
by Adam Gosling 05 Oct '16

05 Oct '16

Dear SIG members A proposal to modify the APNIC SIG Guidelines relating to the election of SIG Chairs and Co-Chairs was discussed at a joint sitting of all SIGs during APNIC 42 in Colombo, Sri Lanka. https://www.apnic.net/sig-chair-elections/proposed-revision.txt The proposal did not reach consensus and the joint Chairs returned the proposal to the author for amendment after consideration of the community feedback. An archive of the joint sitting is available at the following link. https://conference.apnic.net/42/program#/schedule/day/8/policy-sig-3 More background to this proposal is available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/chair-elections Regards Adam ------------------------------------------------------- Revising eligible voters of Chair election and Chair's term ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Masato Yamanishi myamanis(a)gmail.com 1. Problem statement -------------------- 1. Eligible voters in SIG Chair election In current SIG guidelines, we have no rule or guideline about eligible voters in SIG Chair election and we have two issues by the lack of such rule. Firstly, we need to have clear guideline whether remote participants have voting rights for SIG Chair election since current practice is different in each election. Secondary, it can be used by fraud, like hijacking the position of Chair agaist the Community by inviting many persons who never attend the community discussion. 2. SIG Chair's term of service While SIG guidelines says "Elections occur yearly. Chair elections and Co-Chair elections occur in alternate years.", both elections were held at same meeting in several cases, in particular when a current Co-Chair stands for the position of Chair, and Chair election and Co-Chair election occur in same year after that. From the continuity of Chair-ship, it is more preferable to stagger Chair's and Co-Chair's term. In addition, there is no alternative condition for the successor's term if current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed though such alternative condition is necessary to maintain staggered term as requested by SIG guideline. (a.k.a. the successor's term of service is same as remaining term of resigned or removed Chair) 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- The objective is preventing confusions related to remote participant as well as mitigating possible frauds in SIG Chair election by setting clear rule for eligible voters. In addition, we can also expect aligning SIG guideline with current practice as well as resolving unclearness of the successor's term when current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed by revising SIG Chair's term of service. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- Please refer following page made by Adam Gosling Comparison of RIR SIG/WG Chair Election Processes https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/other-rirs 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- 1. Eligible voters in SIG Chair election I would like to propose limiting eligible voters of SIG Chair election to registered participants of APNIC Conference where the election is held. In this context, registered participants include remote participants who register to Confer, or its successor in future. 2. SIG Chair's term of service I would like to propose revising SIG Chair's term of service as follows. - Elections occur yearly. Chair elections and Co-Chair elections occur in alternate years (same as current SIG guideline) - If current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed, the succesor's term should be remaining term of current Chair/Co-Chair - If Chair election and Co-Chair election are happen in same year from other reasons than resignation or removal shown in above, Co-Chair's (or Co-Chairs') term of service should be one year as Chair's and Co-Chairs' term of service are staggered 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: By setting clear rule for eligible voters, - we can avoid confusion whether remote participant cast vote for SIG Chair election or not - we can mitigate frauds in SIG Chair election By revising SIG Chair's term of service - we can resolve a conflict between SIG guideline and current practice - we can resolve unclearness of the successor's term when current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed Disadvantages: APNIC staff may need to spend some additional time to confirm whether each voter is registered participants. There is disadvantage by revising SIG Chair's term of service. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- No direct impact 7. References ------------- Chair Election Procedure Review by Adam Gosling https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/chair-elections Comparison of RIR SIG/WG Chair Election Processes https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/other-rirs APNIC SIG Guidelines https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines _______________________________________________________ Adam Gosling Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC e: adam(a)apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3142 m: +61 421 456 243 t: @bout_policy _______________________________________________________ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________

1 0

Proposal to revise SIG guidelines
by Adam Gosling 05 Oct '16

05 Oct '16

Dear SIG members A proposal to modify the APNIC SIG Guidelines relating to the election of SIG Chairs and Co-Chairs has been submitted for consideration at APNIC 42 im Colombo, Sri Lanka. https://www.apnic.net/sig-chair-elections/proposed-revision.txt If agreed. these changes will affect all APNIC SIGs from APNIC 43 in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Discussion and call for consensus will take place in the Policy SIG. https://www.apnic.net/mailinglists If successful in the Policy SIG, a consensus call will be made at the APNIC Member Meeting. There will be no final Comment Period. To ensure those not travelling to APNIC 42 are able to participate in the discussion, you are invited to comment on the Policy SIG Mailing List before the conference. More background to this proposal is available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/chair-elections Regards Adam ------------------------------------------------------- Revising eligible voters of Chair election and Chair's term ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Masato Yamanishi myamanis(a)gmail.com 1. Problem statement -------------------- 1. Eligible voters in SIG Chair election In current SIG guidelines, we have no rule or guideline about eligible voters in SIG Chair election and we have two issues by the lack of such rule. Firstly, we need to have clear guideline whether remote participants have voting rights for SIG Chair election since current practice is different in each election. Secondary, it can be used by fraud, like hijacking the position of Chair agaist the Community by inviting many persons who never attend the community discussion. 2. SIG Chair's term of service While SIG guidelines says "Elections occur yearly. Chair elections and Co-Chair elections occur in alternate years.", both elections were held at same meeting in many cases, in particular when a current Co-Chair stand for the position of Chair. With this current practice having both elections at same meeting, we are not seeing any significant issues for long time. In addition, there is no alternative condition for the successor's term if current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed though such alternative condition is necessary to maintain staggered term as requested by SIG guideline. (a.k.a. the successor's term of service is same as remaining term of resigned or removed Chair) 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- The objective is preventing confusions related to remote participant as well as mitigating possible frauds in SIG Chair election by setting clear rule for eligible voters. In addition, we can also expect aligning SIG guideline with current practice as well as resolving unclearness of the successor's term when current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed by revising SIG Chair's term of service. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- Please refer following page made by Adam Gosling Comparison of RIR SIG/WG Chair Election Processes https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/other-rirs 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- 1. Eligible voters in SIG Chair election I would like to propose limiting eligible voters of SIG Chair election to registered participants of APNIC Conference where the election is held. In this context, registered participants include remote participants who register to Confer, or its successor in future. 2. SIG Chair's term of service I would like to propose aligning Chair' term with Co-Chair's term, which means that Chair and all Co-Chair will serve for same two years. To keep this alighment, I would like to propose limiting the successor's term to remaining term of current Chair/Co-Chair if current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: By setting clear rule for eligible voters, - we can avoid confusion whether remote participant cast vote for SIG Chair election or not - we can mitigate frauds in SIG Chair election By revising SIG Chair's term of service - we can resolve a conflict between SIG guideline and current practice - we can resolve unclearness of the successor's term when current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed Disadvantages: APNIC staff may need to spend some additional time to confirm whether each voter is registered participants. There is no disadvantage by revising SIG Chair's term of service. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- No direct impact 7. References ------------- Chair Election Procedure Review by Adam Gosling https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/chair-elections Comparison of RIR SIG/WG Chair Election Processes https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/other-rirs APNIC SIG Guidelines https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines

9 33

Version 2 of proposal to revise SIG guidelines
by Adam Gosling 02 Oct '16

02 Oct '16

Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal to modify the APNIC SIG Guidelines relating to the election of SIG Chairs and Co-Chairs has been submitted for consideration at APNIC 42 in Colombo, Sri Lanka. https://www.apnic.net/sig-chair-elections/proposed-revision.txt If agreed, these changes will affect all APNIC SIGs from APNIC 43 in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Discussion and call for consensus will take place in a Joint Sitting of all three SIGs during the Policy SIG (3) session of APNIC 42. https://conference.apnic.net/42/program#/schedule/day/8/policy-sig-3 If successful in the Policy SIG, a consensus call will be made at the APNIC Member Meeting. There will be no final Comment Period. To ensure those not travelling to APNIC 42 are able to participate in the discussion, you are invited to comment on the Policy SIG Mailing List before the conference. Remote Participation is available using the following link: https://conference.apnic.net/42/remote More background to this proposal is available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/chair-elections Regards Adam ------------------------------------------------------- Revising eligible voters of Chair election and Chair's term ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Masato Yamanishi myamanis(a)gmail.com 1. Problem statement -------------------- 1. Eligible voters in SIG Chair election In current SIG guidelines, we have no rule or guideline about eligible voters in SIG Chair election and we have two issues by the lack of such rule. Firstly, we need to have clear guideline whether remote participants have voting rights for SIG Chair election since current practice is different in each election. Secondary, it can be used by fraud, like hijacking the position of Chair agaist the Community by inviting many persons who never attend the community discussion. 2. SIG Chair's term of service While SIG guidelines says "Elections occur yearly. Chair elections and Co-Chair elections occur in alternate years.", both elections were held at same meeting in several cases, in particular when a current Co-Chair stands for the position of Chair, and Chair election and Co-Chair election occur in same year after that. From the continuity of Chair-ship, it is more preferable to stagger Chair's and Co-Chair's term. In addition, there is no alternative condition for the successor's term if current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed though such alternative condition is necessary to maintain staggered term as requested by SIG guideline. (a.k.a. the successor's term of service is same as remaining term of resigned or removed Chair) 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- The objective is preventing confusions related to remote participant as well as mitigating possible frauds in SIG Chair election by setting clear rule for eligible voters. In addition, we can also expect aligning SIG guideline with current practice as well as resolving unclearness of the successor's term when current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed by revising SIG Chair's term of service. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- Please refer following page made by Adam Gosling Comparison of RIR SIG/WG Chair Election Processes https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/other-rirs 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- 1. Eligible voters in SIG Chair election I would like to propose limiting eligible voters of SIG Chair election to registered participants of APNIC Conference where the election is held. In this context, registered participants include remote participants who register to Confer, or its successor in future. 2. SIG Chair's term of service I would like to propose revising SIG Chair's term of service as follows. - Elections occur yearly. Chair elections and Co-Chair elections occur in alternate years (same as current SIG guideline) - If current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed, the succesor's term should be remaining term of current Chair/Co-Chair - If Chair election and Co-Chair election are happen in same year from other reasons than resignation or removal shown in above, Co-Chair's (or Co-Chairs') term of service should be one year as Chair's and Co-Chairs' term of service are staggered 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: By setting clear rule for eligible voters, - we can avoid confusion whether remote participant cast vote for SIG Chair election or not - we can mitigate frauds in SIG Chair election By revising SIG Chair's term of service - we can resolve a conflict between SIG guideline and current practice - we can resolve unclearness of the successor's term when current Chair/Co-Chair resigned or was removed Disadvantages: APNIC staff may need to spend some additional time to confirm whether each voter is registered participants. There is disadvantage by revising SIG Chair's term of service. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- No direct impact 7. References ------------- Chair Election Procedure Review by Adam Gosling https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/chair-elections Comparison of RIR SIG/WG Chair Election Processes https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/other-rirs APNIC SIG Guidelines https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines _______________________________________________________ Adam Gosling Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC e: adam(a)apnic.net<mailto:adam@apnic.net> p: +61 7 3858 3142 m: +61 421 456 243 t: @bout_policy _______________________________________________________ Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________

1 0

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)
by Jahangir Hossain 02 Oct '16

02 Oct '16

Dear all , I'm latecomer of the race to get IPv4 . So as a latecomer of the community, may i have a last option or opportunity to get resources ? According to transfer statistics and member of this community, we are responsible for maintaining the number resources policy and update when needed for the community . *Regards / Jahangir * On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Hiroki Kawabata <kawabata(a)nic.ad.jp> wrote: > If the current situation of 103/8 distribution is different from the > intention > and concept of prop-062(*) as described in the proposal, I think we need > to discuss it > and revise the policy as necessary. > > (*)103/8 block is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address block > for new comers. > > prop-062: Use of final /8 > https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062 > > I think our community is responsible for maintaining the number resources > policy. > Regardless of IPv4 or IPv6, it is not appropriate to leave the policy > untouched, > and not to maintain what we have developed. > > Regards, > Hiroki > > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer > IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED) > From: Mark Foster <blakjak(a)gmail.com> > Date: Tue Sep 27 2016 09:14:57 GMT+0900 > > I agree that there's an element of 'deck chair rearrangement' but it's a >> reality that there is a commercial market for IPv4 and competitive value in >> having addresses available. To simply say 'who cares about IPv4, move on' >> will simply encourage predatory practices. >> >> I have no doubt that the M&A process will be used to abuse the process, >> and believe there needs to be a deterrent to the abuse of the bureaucratic >> process. >> But legitimate M&A needs to be permitted (having had to engage this >> process in the last couple of years due to organisational and commercial >> changes at my then-employer, I wouldn't want to see that process made any >> more complex than necessary). >> >> I think that the modified proposal has merit for that reason, and would >> support it. >> >> Mark. >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Alastair Johnson <aj(a)sneep.net <mailto: >> aj(a)sneep.net>> wrote: >> >> I agree with Mike. I don't support this proposal. >> >> AJ >> >> On Sep 26, 2016, at 2:26 PM, HENDERSON MIKE, MR < >> MICHAEL.HENDERSON(a)NZDF.mil.nz <mailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz>> >> wrote: >> >> The objectives of this proposal are laudable, but in my view policy >>> development for IPv4 is just ‘rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic’: >>> a waste of time and effort.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> I do *not* support this proposal____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Regards____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> */Mike/*____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> *From:*sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net <mailto: >>> sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis >>> ts.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net>] *On Behalf Of >>> *Masato Yamanishi >>> *Sent:* Monday, 26 September 2016 11:06 p.m. >>> *To:* sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to >>> transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Dear SIG members >>> >>> A new version of the proposal "prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 >>> addresses in the final /8 block" has been sent to the Policy SIG for >>> review. >>> >>> Information about earlier versions is available from: >>> >>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-116 < >>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-116> >>> >>> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >>> >>> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? >>> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >>> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more >>> effective? >>> >>> Please find the text of the proposal below. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Masato, Sumon >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> prop-116-v002: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 >>> block >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Proposer: Tomohiro Fujisaki >>> fujisaki(a)syce.net <mailto:fujisaki@syce.net> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Problem statement >>> -------------------- >>> >>> There are a lot of transfers of IPv4 address blocks from 103/8 >>> happening, both within the APNIC region and among RIRs. >>> >>> Then number of transfer from 103/8 block are about 200, which is >>> about 12% of the total number of transfers. This looks so hight >>> high, since APNIC manages about 40/8. >>> >>> And based on the information provided by APNIC secretariat, number >>> of transfers from the 103/8 block are increasing year by year. >>> >>> Provided by George Kuo on the sig-policy ML at 8th September 2016: >>> >>> 1) M&A transfers containing 103/8 space >>> >>> +------+-----------+-----------+- >>> | | Total | Number of | >>> | Year | Transfers | /24s | >>> +------+-----------+-----------+- >>> | 2011 | 3 | 12 | >>> | 2012 | 10 | 46 | >>> | 2013 | 18 | 66 | >>> | 2014 | 126 | 498 | >>> | 2015 | 147 | 573 | >>> | 2016 | 45 | 177 | >>> +------+-----------+------------+- >>> >>> 2) Market transfers containing 103/8 space >>> >>> +------+-----------+-----------+ >>> | | Total | Number of | >>> | Year | Transfers | /24s | >>> +------+-----------+-----------+ >>> | 2011 | 2 | 2 | >>> | 2012 | 21 | 68 | >>> | 2013 | 16 | 61 | >>> | 2014 | 25 | 95 | >>> | 2015 | 67 | 266 | >>> | 2016 | 56 | 206 | >>> +------+-----------+-----------+ >>> >>> >>> And also, transfers from the 103/8 block include: >>> - Take place within 1 year of distribution, or >>> - Multiple blocks to a single organization in case of beyond 1 >>> year. >>> >>> Further, there is a case where a single organization have received 12 >>> blocks transfers from 103 range. >>> >>> see: https://www.apnic.net/transfer-resources/transfer-logs < >>> https://www.apnic.net/transfer-resources/transfer-logs> >>> >>> From these figures, it is quite likely that substantial number of >>> 103/8 >>> blocks are being used for transfer purpose. >>> >>> This conflicts with the concept of distribution of 103/8 block >>> (prop-062), which is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address >>> blocks >>> for new comers. >>> >>> prop-062: Use of final /8 >>> https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062 < >>> https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. Objective of policy change >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> When stated problem is solved, distribution from 103/8 block will be >>> consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new >>> entrants >>> to the industry. Without the policy change, substantial portion of >>> 103/8 >>> blocks will be consumed for transfer purpose. >>> >>> >>> 3. Situation in other regions >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> RIPE-NCC has been discussing to prohibit transfer under the final /8 >>> address block. >>> >>> >>> 4. Proposed policy solution >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> Prohibit transfer IPv4 address under /8 address block (103/8). >>> If the address block allocated to a LIR is not needed any more, it >>> have >>> to return to APNIC to allocate to another organization. >>> >>> In the case of transfers due to M&A, merged organization can have >>> up to /22 IPv4 address in the 103/8 block. The 103/8 IPv4 address >>> more than /22 have to return to APNIC to allocate to another >>> organization. >>> >>> >>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> Advantages: >>> - It makes 103/8 blocks available according to the original >>> purpose, >>> as distribution for new entrants (rather than being consumed for >>> transfer purpose) >>> >>> - IPv4 addresses under final /8 are not transferred to outside >>> APNIC. >>> >>> - By prohibiting transfer them, it is possible to keep one /22 for >>> each LIRs state, which is fair for all LIRs. >>> >>> Disadvantages: >>> >>> None. >>> >>> >>> 6. Impact on resource holders >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> - LIRs cannot transfer address blocks under 103/8. No big impact >>> while >>> they use it. >>> >>> - Organizations which needs to receive transferred IPv4 can >>> continue >>> to do so, outside 103/8 blocks (which should be made available >>> for >>> new entrants) >>> >>> >>> 7. References >>> -------------____ >>> >>> The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended >>> for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not >>> necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence >>> Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, >>> copy or >>> distribute this message or the information in it. If you have >>> received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender >>> immediately. >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy < >>> https://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 <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy < >> https://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 >> https://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 > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > --

2 3

APNIC 42 conference starts tomorrow - participate remotely!
by Srinivas Chendi (APNIC) 02 Oct '16

02 Oct '16

________________________________________________________________________ APNIC 42 conference starts tomorrow - participate remotely! ________________________________________________________________________ If you can't attend a session in person, you can participate remotely using our online participation tools. We provide an Adobe Connect virtual conference room with live video, audio, transcript, chat, and real-time slides and YouTube live, allowing you to virtually attend and participate in APNIC 42 online. https://conference.apnic.net/42/remote Policy SIG ---------- If you want to play a part in how Internet number resources are managed, be sure to participate at the three Policy SIG sessions. As well as the proposals under discussion, there will also be interesting presentations on whois data quality and accuracy, and IPv4 transfers. https://conference.apnic.net/42/policy First TC Security Session ------------------------- With cyber security threats on the rise, it's important to keep up to date on Internet security vulnerabilities, mitigation techniques, and ways the Internet community can work together to find solutions. Check out the FIRST Technical Colloquia sessions to hear from regional and international Internet security experts share their real-world experiences. https://conference.apnic.net/42/program#/schedule/day/8/first-tc-security-s… Thanks to our sponsors ---------------------- Huge thanks go to our APNIC 42 sponsors. We really appreciate your support! https://conference.apnic.net/42/sponsor#sponsors Keep in touch ------------- Stay up to date with what's happening at the conference by subscribing to the APNIC Blog and following us on our social networks. http://blog.apnic.net https://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/social-media ________________________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat secretariat(a)apnic.net Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: 61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia Fax: 61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD http://www.apnic.net ________________________________________________________________________

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy October 2016