I'm latecomer of the race to get IPv4 . So as a latecomer of the community, may i have a last option or opportunity to get resources ?
According to transfer statistics and member of this community, we are responsible for maintaining the number resources policy and update when needed for the community .
Regards / Jahangir
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Hiroki Kawabata <kawabata@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
If the current situation of 103/8 distribution is different from the intention
and concept of prop-062(*) as described in the proposal, I think we need to discuss it
and revise the policy as necessary.
(*)103/8 block is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address block
for new comers.
I think our community is responsible for maintaining the number resources policy.
Regardless of IPv4 or IPv6, it is not appropriate to leave the policy untouched,
and not to maintain what we have developed.
Regards,
Hiroki
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED)
From: Mark Foster <blakjak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Sep 27 2016 09:14:57 GMT+0900
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.
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.____
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>
