Re: [apnic-transfers] [sig-policy] IP Leasing BoF at APRICOT 2014
- To: Dean Pemberton <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
- Subject: Re: [apnic-transfers] [sig-policy] IP Leasing BoF at APRICOT 2014
- From: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:36:00 +1100
- Cc: apnic-transfers <apnic-transfers at apnic dot net>, "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
- Delivered-to: apnic-transfers at mailman dot apnic dot net
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:x-google-dkim-signature:x-gm-message-state:x-received: mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to: cc:content-type; bh=Q6pFfPgfuOFtrqOOV1pnlcQefqQpx2siTYU1y3MGRVA=; b=KfhpLpIhL5TAbOCD7nDthY1uz587yJf29RUzz/io7rj+Z8m03mWygfvNlMVHqIiYrdo3NZOiR9FAi 1aVLfwxt12Z81XnIkDLefaR9jfh3OXkWvJG5qCX5HRiEJyJJlzbA64RNxZFOG+VyQxkxnVvdOuDfX8 7NN6oKWeB2dm0Sys=
- In-reply-to: <CACfPNNTOjVJVfFYOFfGi95kbFTESFfiz8Btb9Xu4jMBJ6syFMg at mail dot gmail dot com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-transfers/>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: <apnic-transfers.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-transfers>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/apnic-transfers>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Any way to attend this remotely?
Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean at deanpemberton dot com> wrote:
Good Morning all,
There will be a BoF on the subject of IP address leasing at the
APRICOT 2014 meeting on Tuesday, 25th Feb 2014 at 17:30 - 19:00 in the
Grand Caymans room on Level 10.
I will be chairing this BoF and I'd like to invite all interested
parties to attend.
While the concept of IP address leasing is not new, and has been the
primary model for ISP sub-delegation to its customers, there is an
assumption that some level of operational control is retained by the
ISP. There is an expectation that the registry data reflects an
operational hierarchy that makes it possible for people to look up
'parent' blocks and use the contact information at that level to
resolve operational issues at a lower level network block.
This model and assumptions may no longer be valid in the IPv4
exhaustion state we're currently in. Addresses may be leased out with
no operational service or control attached to it. How should the
registry reflect this reality, to maintain its important role in
facilitating operational trouble shooting? Policy-wise, should lessors
be allowed to accumulate address space, using leasing demands as
'demonstrated need' in getting more IP addresses transferred to them?
Voice your opinion in a healthy debate in this BoF, held to gauge the
community's sentiment on these important issues.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net