Would it be an unacceptable outcome if the impact of the last /8 policy were only to increase the difficulty of new /22 blocks, rather than preventing it outright?
(I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wonder whether it is practical to expect an absolute prohibition to be effective.)
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Owen DeLong owen@delong.com wrote:
All of them.
Here's the problem… If you're trying to circumvent the last /8 policy
by creating a pseudo-org, obtaining a /22, then transferring that /22
to the original org., then it's easy enough to do the transfer either
by having the parent acquire the pseudo-org (M&A) or by having the
resources transferred under Section 3.
Owen
On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Leo Vegoda leo.vegoda@icann.org wrote:
Hi Owen,
Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
I would propose that any prefix obtained from the last /8 (these are,
after all, easily identifiable)
simply be excluded from the transfer policy and that all such prefixes be
subject to reclamation
if the entity which received the prefix ceases operations.
Which part of the transfer policy? Section 3 deals with transfers between
APNIC account holders while section 6 deals with corporate M&A activity.
Thanks,
Leo
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy