On 30/04/2009, at 16:30 , cwkuo wrote:
I also agree with Terry and Ji-Young.
The prop-50 doesn't justify use of transferred space using the
allocation
and assignment policies and restrictions, it will conflict with the
goals of
address management of Conservation and Fairness (You can see at "5
Goals of
address space management",
I take a different view and I'd also like to comment on the 5 Goals in
relation to Prop-050.
Section 5.1.2 charters APNIC to ensure that assignments and
allocations "must be registered in a publicly accessible database.
This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to provide information for
Internet troubleshooting at all levels. It also reflects the
expectation of the Internet community that custodians of these public
resources should be identifiable. "
When we have addresses being transferred to others unofficially then
that goal cannot be met.
It also seems clear to me that address space that is being transferred
from one entity to another is clearly not being used and therefore the
Conservation goal is not being promoted.
I think it's more relevant to look at this section:
5.2 Conflict of goals
The goals of conservation and aggregation often conflict with each
other. Also, some or all of the goals may occasionally conflict with
the interests of individual IRs or end-users. Therefore, IRs
evaluating requests for address space must carefully analyse all
relevant considerations and try to balance the needs of the requestor
with the needs of the Internet community as a whole.
I've said this before but I'm going to again - I believe that the
APNIC hostmasters and other staff are perfectly able to look at
requests from those people who would seek to exploit this and reject
requests on the basis of existing policies where necessary.
There may be a scenario if we pass Prop-50 where the IPv4 address
space will run out a few weeks earlier than it would have done but in
the end it will make little or no difference to the final outcome.