sig-policy October 2017

sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

10 participants
11 discussions

Monthly List Reminder
by noreply＠apnic.net 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

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

End of Comment Period for prop-122
by Bertrand Cherrier 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Dear colleagues, The four-week final comment period for the proposal 'prop-122: - Updating “Subsequent IPv6 allocation” policy' has ended. During the comment period, there were no objections raised and continued support for the proposal. As consensus has been maintained, we formally request that the APNIC Executive Council endorse this proposal. For a detailed history of this proposal please see: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-122/ Regards, Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs ___________________________________________ Bertrand Cherrier Administration Systèmes - R&D Micro Logic Systems b.cherrier(a)micrologic.nc https://www.mls.nc Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 Service Clientèle : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) ___________________________________________

1 0

End of Comment Period for prop-121
by Bertrand Cherrier 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Dear colleagues, The four-week final comment period for the proposal 'prop-121: - Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policy' has ended. During the comment period, there were no objections raised and continued support for the proposal. As consensus has been maintained, we formally request that the APNIC Executive Council endorse this proposal. For a detailed history of this proposal please see: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-121/ Regards, Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs ___________________________________________ Bertrand Cherrier Administration Systèmes - R&D Micro Logic Systems b.cherrier(a)micrologic.nc https://www.mls.nc Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 Service Clientèle : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) ___________________________________________

1 0

End of Comment Period for prop-116
by Bertrand Cherrier 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Dear colleagues, The four-week final comment period for the proposal 'prop-116: - Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block' has ended. During the comment period, there were some concerns raised about the 5-year term that reached consensus at the APNIC 44 Policy SIG meeting in Taichung, Taiwan. We note there was significant support for the 5-year restriction at the meeting. If, in the future, this longer term creates problems for the community, it could be revised with the acceptance of a future proposal to amend the policy. We therefor decide that the consensus on prop-116 has been maintained and we formally request that the APNIC Executive Council endorse this proposal for implementation. For a detailed history of this proposal please see: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-116/ Regards, Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand Policy SIG Chairs ___________________________________________ Bertrand Cherrier Administration Systèmes - R&D Micro Logic Systems b.cherrier(a)micrologic.nc https://www.mls.nc Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 Service Clientèle : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) ___________________________________________

1 0

Fwd: [apops] APRICOT 2018 Call for Presentations
by Mark Tinka 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

Greetings - FYI. Mark. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [apops] APRICOT 2018 Call for Presentations Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:27:00 +1000 From: Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com> To: apops(a)apops.net Hi everyone, The call for presentations for APRICOT 2018 has now been published - a copy is below FYI. philip -- Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT) 25th - 28th February 2018, Kathmandu, Nepal https://2018.apricot.net CALL FOR PAPERS =============== The APRICOT 2018 Programme Committee is now seeking contributions for Presentations and Tutorials for the APRICOT 2018 Conference. We are looking for presenters who would: - Offer a technical tutorial on an appropriate topic; - Participate in the technical conference sessions as a speaker; - Convene and chair panel sessions of relevant topics. Please submit on-line at: http://papers.apricot.net/user/login.php?event=63 CONFERENCE MILESTONES --------------------- Call for Papers Opens: Now Draft Program Published: As Papers Confirmed Final Deadline for Submissions: 26 January 2018 Final Program Published: 2 February 2018 Final Slides Received: 16 February 2018 *NOTE THAT REGARDLESS OF DEADLINES, SLOTS ARE FILLED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS* PROGRAMME MATERIAL ------------------ The APRICOT Conference Programme consists of three parts, these being the Peering Forum, Tutorials, and Conference Tracks. Topics proposed must be relevant to Internet Operations and Technologies: - IPv4 / IPv6 Routing and Operations - IPv6 deployment and transition technologies - Internet backbone operations - ISP and Carrier services - IXPs and Peering - Research on Internet Operations and Deployment - Software Defined Networking / Network Function Virtualisaton - Network security issues (NSP-SEC, DDoS, Anti-Spam, Anti-Malware) - DNS / DNSSEC - Internet policy (Security, Regulation, Content Management, Addressing, etc) - Access and Transport Technologies, including Cable/DSL, LTE/5G, wireless, metro ethernet, fibre, segment routing - Content & Service Delivery (Multicast, Voice, Video, "telepresence", Gaming) and Cloud Computing CfP SUBMISSION -------------- Draft slides for both tutorials and conference sessions MUST be provided with CfP submissions otherwise the Programme Committee will be unable to review the submission. For avoidance of doubt this means that submissions which do not include slides will be rejected immediately. For work in progress, the most current information available at time of submission is acceptable. All draft and complete slides must be submitted in PDF format only. Final slides are to be provided by the specified deadline for publication on the APRICOT website. Prospective presenters should note that the majority of speaking slots will be filled well before the final submission deadline. The PC may, at their discretion, retain a limited number of slots up to the final submission deadline for presentations that are exceptionally timely, important, or of critical operational importance. Every year we turn away submissions, due to filling up all available programme slots before the deadline. Presenters should endeavour to get material into the PC sooner rather than later. Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the Programme Committee by e-mail at: pc-chairs at apricot.net We look forward to receiving your presentation proposals. Mark Tinka, Jonny Martin & Philip Smith Co-Chairs, APRICOT 2018 Programme Committee -- _______________________________________________ apops mailing list apops(a)apops.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops Website: www.apops.net .

1 0

Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8
by liuwei_177＠sina.com 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

M&A shouldn't be included in the proposal. In this way, people's normal business will be seriously affected. From: sig-policy-request Date: 2017-10-16 15:08 To: sig-policy Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-request(a)lists.apnic.net You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-owner(a)lists.apnic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 (? ??) 2. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 (? ??) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 06:57:11 +0000 From: ? ?? <skylee_615(a)hotmail.com> To: "sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net" <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 Message-ID: <BY2PR20MB040765842B845C78E62E8199AF4F0(a)BY2PR20MB0407.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no reason to prohobit the IP transfer. ________________________________ skylee_615 From: sig-policy-request(a)lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net> Date: 2017-10-14 10:00 To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-request(a)lists.apnic.net You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-owner(a)lists.apnic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." Today's Topics: 1. sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued (Brown Kevin) 2. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued (Mike Burns) 3. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Mike Burns) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:36:26 +0800 From: Brown Kevin <kevin349873213(a)gmail.com> To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued Message-ID: <CAF02+oforxxcRoCpsXHQojKEf812aioR8cwy0+tavYFJaBMscQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy officially issued. Best Regards, Kevin ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:48:05 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" <mike(a)iptrading.com> To: "'Brown Kevin'" <kevin349873213(a)gmail.com>, <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued Message-ID: <007d01d34429$e593e860$b0bbb920$(a)iptrading.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We have already brokered sales of 103 blocks in the past. What about those who have received 103 blocks via transfer and not direct allocation? Are they exempted or grandfathered-in, or did they purchase something they expected to be resellable, only to find that option has been removed from them via policy change? I suggest, since APNIC has the records of 103 blocks which have already been transferred, that those blocks be explicitly treated as non-103 blocks, allowing those blocks to be re-transferred. I am sure the number is small relative to the number of /22s in 103/8. While I understand the nature of 103/8 is different from other blocks, in general I am against waiting periods. They are designed to prevent "flipping", but in fact they cause grief for those whose business plans or environments change. And they prevent normal market activities that I think would be good for the IPv4 market. For example, we have done almost 500 transfers, and we think we could be more efficient at the job of say, breaking down and selling a /16 as small blocks than most /16 holders would be. In exchange for this efficiency, we would extract profit. But holding-periods and needs-tests, imposed by registry stewards, preclude this efficiency from entering the market. IPv4 addresses are bought and sold every day, but artificial market restrictions warp the market to the detriment of participants. The purported reason for these restrictions is to prevent speculation and hoarding, none of which has appeared in the RIPE community, which is where it would be expected to appear, since RIPE removed the needs-test from transfers years ago. I think five years is too long, and no waiting period at all is preferable. Regards, Mike Burns -----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Brown Kevin Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:36 AM To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy officially issued. Best Regards, Kevin * 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 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:38:48 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" <mike(a)iptrading.com> To: "'steven.166'" <steven.166(a)tom.com>, <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years Message-ID: <009a01d34430$fb1dceb0$f1596c10$(a)iptrading.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >As we know,RIPE NCC and ARIN have the similar 2 years limit for transfer. >We think 2 years limit is more reasonable. >It will make the policy more compatible with other RIRs. >Best Regards, >Steven Hi Steven, Actually it?s: ARIN 1 year RIPE 2 years LACNIC 3 years And we are conflating things. Here is my understanding: ARIN has no ?final /8? policy, so the 1 year policy applies to all transfers except mergers and acquisitions. RIPE?s has a ?final /8? policy, but still the 2 years applies to all transfers. LACNIC?s 3 year policy applies to all direct allocations from LACNIC (not just final /8) , but not to resales of prior transfers. But APNIC is considering a waiting period only on the 103 block, that would be inherently different from the other registries, so finding compatibility will be limited in any case. Regards, Mike Burns -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171013/7df6…> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 ****************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171016/c4f2…> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:08:39 +0000 From: ? ?? <skylee_615(a)hotmail.com> To: "sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net" <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 Message-ID: <BY2PR20MB04070E50FADBEAE0D7883510AF4F0(a)BY2PR20MB0407.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no reason to prohobit the IP transfer. ________________________________ skylee_615 From: sig-policy-request(a)lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net> Date: 2017-10-16 10:00 To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-request(a)lists.apnic.net You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-owner(a)lists.apnic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Ajai Kumar) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 12:40:00 +0530 From: Ajai Kumar <joinajay1(a)gmail.com> To: Rajesh Panwala <rajesh(a)smartlinkindia.com> Cc: "steven.166" <steven.166(a)tom.com>, "sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net" <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years Message-ID: <CAL41znPnx_Liks4t95Ok0xRofzV3fdBpr3kWeoVyCkctqZ9y9w(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I also support it for 2 years only. Regards, Ajai Kumar On 14 October 2017 at 19:34, Rajesh Panwala <rajesh(a)smartlinkindia.com> wrote: > Dear Team > > Policy in sync with other RIR, is more reasonable. I also think 2 years is > appropriate. > > Rajesh Panwala > > On 13-Oct-2017 11:35 AM, "steven.166" <steven.166(a)tom.com> wrote: > >> *Dear all,* >> >> As we know,RIPE NCC and ARIN have the similar 2 years limit for transfer. >> >> We think 2 years limit is more reasonable. >> It will make the policy more compatible with other RIRs. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Steven >> >> ???-???????????????? <http://mail.tom.com/webmail-static/welcomesxy.html> >> * 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 > -- (M) +91-9868477444 Skype ID:erajay P-mail: joinajay1 at gmail.com ................................. Please don't print this email unless you really need to. This will preserve trees on our planet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171015/16f7…> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7 ****************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20171016/573f…> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 8 ******************************************

1 0

Don't support 5 years change of prop-116
by skyone sky 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

It's a sudden change of this policy proposal. I don't support it because 5 years limitation for transfers is too strict. I'm sure quite a lot members in the community like me just knew or haven't known the proposal yet. When we knew it, we don't like such a crazy strict proposal... skyone

1 0

sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued
by Brown Kevin 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy officially issued. Best Regards, Kevin

3 2

Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5
by ? ?? 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

I object this propasal. If M&A happend, there is no reason to prohobit the IP transfer. ________________________________ skylee_615 From: sig-policy-request(a)lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net> Date: 2017-10-14 10:00 To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net<mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 5 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-request(a)lists.apnic.net You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-owner(a)lists.apnic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." Today's Topics: 1. sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued (Brown Kevin) 2. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued (Mike Burns) 3. Re: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years (Mike Burns) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:36:26 +0800 From: Brown Kevin <kevin349873213(a)gmail.com> To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued Message-ID: <CAF02+oforxxcRoCpsXHQojKEf812aioR8cwy0+tavYFJaBMscQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy officially issued. Best Regards, Kevin ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:48:05 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" <mike(a)iptrading.com> To: "'Brown Kevin'" <kevin349873213(a)gmail.com>, <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued Message-ID: <007d01d34429$e593e860$b0bbb920$(a)iptrading.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We have already brokered sales of 103 blocks in the past. What about those who have received 103 blocks via transfer and not direct allocation? Are they exempted or grandfathered-in, or did they purchase something they expected to be resellable, only to find that option has been removed from them via policy change? I suggest, since APNIC has the records of 103 blocks which have already been transferred, that those blocks be explicitly treated as non-103 blocks, allowing those blocks to be re-transferred. I am sure the number is small relative to the number of /22s in 103/8. While I understand the nature of 103/8 is different from other blocks, in general I am against waiting periods. They are designed to prevent "flipping", but in fact they cause grief for those whose business plans or environments change. And they prevent normal market activities that I think would be good for the IPv4 market. For example, we have done almost 500 transfers, and we think we could be more efficient at the job of say, breaking down and selling a /16 as small blocks than most /16 holders would be. In exchange for this efficiency, we would extract profit. But holding-periods and needs-tests, imposed by registry stewards, preclude this efficiency from entering the market. IPv4 addresses are bought and sold every day, but artificial market restrictions warp the market to the detriment of participants. The purported reason for these restrictions is to prevent speculation and hoarding, none of which has appeared in the RIPE community, which is where it would be expected to appear, since RIPE removed the needs-test from transfers years ago. I think five years is too long, and no waiting period at all is preferable. Regards, Mike Burns -----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Brown Kevin Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:36 AM To: sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--- apply in the address allocated after the policy officially issued There is a big problem what is the range of the transfer prohibition, all the allocated 103/8 or new allocated after this policy officially issued. I noticed that in the current policy, there is no special prohibit term for 103/8 transfer. and the ploicy is part of the contract between members and NIRs or LIRs or APNIC. If the modified policy applied in these old 103/8 address which was applied befeore this new policy. Is it a kind of break contract? I think this policy should only apply the address applied after the policy officially issued. Best Regards, Kevin * 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 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:38:48 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" <mike(a)iptrading.com> To: "'steven.166'" <steven.166(a)tom.com>, <sig-policy(a)lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years Message-ID: <009a01d34430$fb1dceb0$f1596c10$(a)iptrading.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >As we know,RIPE NCC and ARIN have the similar 2 years limit for transfer. >We think 2 years limit is more reasonable. >It will make the policy more compatible with other RIRs. >Best Regards, >Steven Hi Steven, Actually it?s: ARIN 1 year RIPE 2 years LACNIC 3 years And we are conflating things. Here is my understanding: ARIN has no ?final /8? policy, so the 1 year policy applies to all transfers except mergers and acquisitions. RIPE?s has a ?final /8? policy, but still the 2 years applies to all transfers. LACNIC?s 3 year policy applies to all direct allocations from LACNIC (not just final /8) , but not to resales of prior transfers. But APNIC is considering a waiting period only on the 103 block, that would be inherently different from the other registries, so finding compatibility will be limited in any case. Regards, Mike Burns

2 1

Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 161, Issue 7
by ? ?? 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

sig-policy October 2017