sig-policy September 2016

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

19 participants
11 discussions

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

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 30 Sep '16

30 Sep '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

Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)
by Aftab Siddiqui 28 Sep '16

28 Sep '16

Hi Elvis, Even though I also don't support the policy as it stands but... > I do not like any proposal that will restrict some of the rights a 'new' > member has as compared to the rights of a member from pre-2011. > Why not? If you are late to the party then there are no free drinks for you.. simple is that isn't it? > Companies that are members after 2011 will see their right to transfer IP > addresses restricted (as most of these only have IPs from the 'Final /8'). > Wrong, they all have /22 from final /8 and another /22 from IANA recovered pool. > IF this proposal becomes policy, some IP transfers will be moved > underground > People are still leasing out IPv4 as we speak.. its not the right thing from any perspective but its happening and it will happen in future as well.. > while some others will be 'painted' as M&As. > Yes, it will happen no matter what policy you put in place.. > So, *no* support from me. > I agree with that as well :) > regards, > > elvis > > On 9/26/16 12:50 PM, Alastair Johnson 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 <MICHAEL.HENDERSON(a)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(a)lists.apnic.net [ > mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net > <sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net>] *On Behalf Of *Masato Yamanishi > *Sent:* Monday, 26 September 2016 11:06 p.m. > *To:* sig-policy(a)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 > > 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 > > > > > 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 > ------------- > 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 > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing listsig-policy@lists.apnic.nethttps://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 -- Best Wishes, Aftab A. Siddiqui

3 3

Policy SIG @ APNIC 42
by Adam Gosling 28 Sep '16

28 Sep '16

Dear Community Members The details for the APNIC 42 Policy SIG meeting are available on the Conference website (and below). The three sessions of the Policy SIG will be held over two days. Remote Participation -------------------- Facilities are available for remote participants. https://conference.apnic.net/42/remote Policy SIG (1) -------------- https://conference.apnic.net/42/program#/schedule/day/7/policy-sig-1---whoi… Venue ----- 16:00 to 17:30 (UTC +05:30) Tuesday, 4 October 2016 Ballroom 1 Ground Floor Hilton Hotel, Colombo Agenda ------ - Masato Yamanishi (Santen Pharmaceutical) - Policy SIG Administration - George Kuo (APNIC) - Improving Whois Data Quality - Dhammika Priyantha - Public Safety and Accuracy of IP Address WHOIS - Discussion (Led by SIG Chairs) Policy SIG (2) -------------- https://conference.apnic.net/42/program#/schedule/day/8/policy-sig-2 Venue ----- 09:00 to 10:30 (UTC +05:30) Wednesday, 5 October 2016 Ballroom 1 Ground Floor Hilton Hotel, Colombo Agenda ------ - Adam Gosling (APNIC) - NRO NC Election Procedures - Election Chair TBC - NRO NC Election Candidate speeches - Guangliang Pan (APNIC) - NRO Number Resource Status Report - Guangliang Pan (APNIC) - IPv4 final /8 delegation report - Tuan Nguyen - IPv4 Transfer Report Policy SIG (3) -------------- https://conference.apnic.net/42/program#/schedule/day/8/policy-sig-3 Venue ----- 11:00 to 12:30 (UTC +05:30) Wednesday, 5 October 2016 Ballroom 1 Ground Floor Hilton Hotel, Colombo Agenda ------ - Smarter Purchasing of IPv4 Addresses From The Market - David Huberman - prop-116-v001: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block - Tomohiro Fujisaki - Joint SIG Session Joint SIG Sitting ----------------- A joint sitting of all SIGs will take place as the last item on the Policy SIG Agenda. The joint session will discuss a proposal to clarify aspects of the SIG Chair Election Procedures. - Revising eligible voters of Chair election and Chair's term https://www.apnic.net/sig-chair-elections/proposed-revision.txt I hope you are available to participate in these activities. Kind Regards, Adam _______________________________________________________ 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 Mark Foster 27 Sep '16

27 Sep '16

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> 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 <MICHAEL.HENDERSON(a)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(a)lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@ > lists.apnic.net <sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net>] *On Behalf Of *Masato > Yamanishi > *Sent:* Monday, 26 September 2016 11:06 p.m. > *To:* sig-policy(a)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 > > 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 > > > > > 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 > ------------- > 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 > 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 >

1 0

New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
by Masato Yamanishi 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

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 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 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

DRAFT# New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
by Sumon Ahmed Sabir 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

1 0

Re: [sig-policy] New Policy Proposal prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
by HENDERSON MIKE, MR 21 Sep '16

21 Sep '16

“Or.. Just get over with it :)” +1 I think spending time and effort on IPv4 policy is just purposeless. Realistically, the people who are commercially wedded to that platform will do whatever it takes to keep afloat for as long as they can. Trying to make IPv4 Policy ‘work right’ will be like playing “Whack-a-Mole” as the desperate players display every bit of ingenuity and rat cunning they possess to stay in the game, until their business model eventually becomes untenable. Regards Mike From: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Aftab Siddiqui Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2016 12:55 p.m. To: Yuya KAWAKAMI; sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New Policy Proposal prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block prop-116 is similar to prop-106 with few cosmetic changes so it would be good to review the old discussion. I wonder if there can be better way to prevent such kind of transfer. Yes, there is a better way, scrap prop-105 and stop handing over additional /22 for no reason and add the recovered resources to final /8 pool. Or.. Just get over with it :) -- Best Wishes, Aftab A. Siddiqui 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.

2 1

New Policy Proposal prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
by Masato Yamanishi 21 Sep '16

21 Sep '16

Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 42 in Colombo, Sri Lanka on Wednesday, 5 October 2016. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting. The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Information about this proposal is available at: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-116 Regards Masato and Sumon ------------------------------------------------------- prop-116-v001: 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. The percentage of transfers from 103/8 block is over 10%, which looks so high, since APNIC manages about 40/8. 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/manage-ip/manage-resources/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. This proposal does not prohibit transfers due to M&A. Transfers of 103/8 block due to M&A continues to be allowed, based on the M&A transfer procedures. 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) - In case of M&A, organizations can transfer 103/8 blocks through M&A transfer procedures 7. References -------------

6 6

checking connection
by TSHEWANG TENZIN 13 Sep '16

13 Sep '16

Dear all, Hope you all are doing well. Regards From Tshewang

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy September 2016