Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
As author of the proposal, perhaps I can help explain one of the reasons
behind the proposal a bit more. One of the two aims of the proposal is
to reduce people taking advantage of the exchange policy as IPv4 reaches
exhaustion. To give some examples from previous uses of the policy, it
has occurred that organizations have taken advantage of the policy on
multiple occassions to grow their resource holdings. For example, an
organization might exchange 5 /24s now for a single /21, then in six
months' time, do the same to receive another /21, and so on, growing
their address holdings by bypassing the other APNIC policies that
require utilization to be justified.
In addition to the reasons behind prop-080, we now have a further
complication. In trying to stop the loophole available via the prefix
exchange policy, it's made more people aware of it. If the proposal
doesn't pass, there is a likelihood that people will use the prefix
exchange policy more frequently in the leadup to IPv4 exhaustion to grow
their address holdings.
On 4/28/2010 2:53 PM, Yi Chu wrote:
Instead of eliminating the prefix exchange policy, would it be more
appropriate to add a clause that APNIC will grant the exchange based on
available resources? I think we all understand that a request is a
request. It can be granted or denied. Wonder why we we need to eliminate
the policy just that we reach the end of the available resource? The
outcome would just naturally be 'sorry, APNIC is running out of v4', and
be the end of it. Exchange policy existed to promote aggregation and is
a good thing.
yi
Sorry that I missed the early call on this, but as this is still within
the eight-week period, I'd like to comment as well...
I am in agreement with Yi's point of view: alter rather than remove. I
cannot understand the need to simply _remove_ a policy because it won't
be usable for very much longer. As shown during the meeting, there have
been only been a small handful of requests for this since the policy has
been in place, so not sure I see the urgent need to remove it.
Another suggested alteration might be to explicitly state that the
contiguous space assigned to replace the non-contiguous blocks being
exchanged would be equal or less than the amount of space being
returned, rather than stating "single, larger, contiguous block". This
would address the concern that, say, three /18s become a /16, for
example, giving the wrong sort of incentive to trade-in space.
Best Regards,
RandyW.
----- Original Message ----
From: Randy Bushrandy@psg.com
To: Policy SIGsig-policy@apnic.net
Sent: Sun, March 7, 2010 11:50:16 PM
Subject: [sig-policy] prop-080: Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy - Final call for comments
This is the final call for comments on policy proposal prop-080,
"Removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy".
This proposal was presented at APNIC 29 and was accepted by consensus.
The proposal is now being submitted to the Policy SIG mailing list for
an eight-week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus
appears to have been achieved, the Policy SIG Chair will ask the
Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
Proposal summary
This is a proposal to remove the policy that currently permits resource
holders to return three or more noncontiguous IPv4 address blocks and
have the prefixes replaced with a single, larger, contiguous block.
Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, presentations,
links to relevant meeting archives and links to mailing list discussions
are available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-080
Regards
Randy, Ching-Heng and Terence
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy