Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi Geoff,
On 23 Jan 2008, at 10:21, Geoff Huston wrote:
[...]
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?
How about:
- Only IPv4 prefixes of /24 or shorter may be transferred.
you know that phrasing is more confusing for me! :-)
[...]
- 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.
I think I would phrase it like this.
- An APNIC member that has been the source of a resource transfer
may not receive IPv4 resources direct from APNIC or from an APNIC
member for 24 months after the completion of the transfer.
Does my phrasing capture your intended meaning?
no - the "or from an APNIC member" is something I cannot parse - I'm
unclear what you are referring to here.
Can you please explain why you chose 24 months as the length of time a
member may not receive IPv4 resources once they have transferred
resources away? Why is it more suitable than a shorter or longer period?
What about the situation of a member who receives address space from
APNIC, transfers it elsewhere then reapplies to APNIC for for addresses
based on the size of their deployed network, transfers them elsewhere,
reapplies to APNIC for more addresses... ?
Also, is it still appropriate if APNIC's stock of unallocated IPv4
address space is emptied within the 24 month period?
yes, entirely so!
Geoff