Leo Vegoda wrote:
Geoff,
A small point on wording and a couple of questions.
[...]
APNIC will process IPv4 address transfer requests following the
adoption of this proposed policy, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions on the IPv4 address block:
- Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefix
may be transferred.
I think it would be clearer to refer to prefix length or block size
but not both.
could you please suggest some alternative wording here? I must admit
that I use these terms interchangeably, so I know what I'm talking about
(! :-)) but I can see the potential for confusion here. Is there a way
that you can suggest to make this clearer?
- The address block must be in the range of addresses administered
by APNIC, either as part of a /8 address block assigned by the
IANA to APNIC, or as part of a historically-assigned address
block now administered by APNIC.
- The address block must be allocated or assigned to a current
APNIC account holder.
In a message about version 1 of this proposal you stated that you
worked "on the principle that what is written in the proposal would be
adopted if the policy was to be adopted and what is not written in the
proposal would not change if the policy was not to be adopted".
I'd like to clarify what I think the proposal states as I am not sure
if I understand the meaning correctly. As I understand it, APNIC
membership is open globally without conditions and members have full
access to all services[1].
The reference you cite asserts that, and I'm in no position to contradic
tthe referenced NRO document.
Am I right in reading your proposal to mean
that any organisation anywhere in the world could take advantage of
this policy and become the recipient of a transfer (if adopted) as
long as they take up APNIC membership?
This would be a logical inference of the combination of this policy
proposal and the APNIC member conditions you have referenced from the
NRO web site.
[...]
- The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
address allocations or assignments from APNIC for a period of 24
months after the transfer.
The meaning of this paragraph depends on whether address transfers go
directly from member to member or go via APNIC. I am not sure which is
the case but if transfers are direct and do not go via APNIC it would
seem that an APNIC member that transferred resources away could go on
to receive additional resources from another member but not from APNIC
within 24 months. Could you please clarify whether transfers need to
go via APNIC?
Hmmm - I know what I meant to say, but it appears that I have not said
it clearly. Let me try to rephrase this, and see if the rephrasing makes
the policy proposal clear, or whether you see a need to reword this to
make the intent clearer.
Today, a member can make a case for the assignement or allocation of
address space from APNIC on the basis of demonstrated need. If a member
is the source of an address transfer under the terms of this policy,
then APNIC will not undertake any allocations or assignments to this
member for a period of 24 months after the transfer.
Now all transfers in the terms of this policy are in effect transfers
from a member to a member (or "current APNIC acoucnt holder" under the
terms of this policy). The policy is a proposal for APNIC to 'recognise"
this transfer and make the appropriate changes to its registry data to
reflect this change of right-of-use holder.
So I do not see a distinction betweem address transfers that go directly
from member to member or go via APNIC - all transfer that are to be
recognised by APNIC under the terms of this policy are in effect
transfers from member to member and are recognised by APNIC in its registry.
Regards,
Leo
[1] http://www.nro.net/documents/nro46.html#1-2
regards,
Geoff