Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers - passed to mailing li

  • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers - passed to mailing list for development
  • From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:47:54 +1000
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <46FA1644.2020805 at psg dot com>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
    • I'm posting this summary to the sig-policy mailing list to start some discussion of this proposal.
      prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
      This proposal was presented at the APNIC 24 Policy SIG. The proposer
      did not seek a consensus call at the meeting. The proposal is being
      passed to the the mailing list for further development by the community
      and the proposal, as refined, will be submitted to APNIC 25.
      Proposal details
      The proposal is for APNIC to process IPv4 address transfer requests
      for address blocks that meet a number of criteria.
      Conditions on the IPv4 address block:
          - Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefix
            may be transferred.
          - 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.
          - The address block will be subject to all current APNIC policies
            from the time of transfer. This includes address blocks
            previously considered to be "historical".
      Conditions on source of the transfer:
          - The source entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
          - The source entity must be the currently registered holder of the
            IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
            the status of those resources.
          - 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.
          - In making any future IPv4 address resource requests to APNIC,
            for as long as IPv4 address resources are available from APNIC,
            following the expiration of this 24 month ineligibility
            period, the source will be required to document the reasons for
            the IPv4 address resource allocation.
      Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
          - The recipient entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
          - The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be
            subject to current APNIC policies. In particular, in any
            subsequent APNIC IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient
            will be required to account for all IPv4 address space held,
            including all transferred resources.
          - APNIC fees payable by the recipient will be assessed on the
            basis of all resources held.
      Discussion at APNIC 24
      Questions were raised regarding:
      - why this policy would not extend to members of NIRs?
        The proposer responded that the NIRs had not been consulted on this
        proposal at that time. This remains an open issue and the issues
        relating to transfers and NIRs does need further consideration.
        It was mentioned that JPNIC is planning a special working group on
        considering address transfer issues and management of historical
        address holdings and intended to report in this activity at APNIC 25.
      - why this did not apply to inter-RIR transfers?
        The proposer responded that this was not being proposed as a globally
        coordinated policy, and was intended to be considered in the scope of
        It was suggested that the proposal be more open-ended and propose that
        APNIC would allow transfers with other RIRs that also allowed such
      - what can we do to make this marketplace more transparent, more fair,
        more open and most beneficial to the Internet users and operators in
        The proposer responded that one of the ways of showing what good
        behaviour in a market was to operate a market place in an exemplary
        fashion and lead by example rather than by exhortation.
      - why does this not apply to historical resource holdings?
        It was noted that there exists a process within the APNIC procedural
        framework to convert historical addresses to current, and this
        proposal does not usurp or overrule such a policy. A disposer of an
        historical address block would firstly need to convert the address to
        a current holding before this transfer policy would be applicable.
      - why is this proposal limited to address blocks equal to or larger than
        a /24?
        The proposer responded that a /24 appears to be the smallest unit of
        address space that we actually see as being an advertisable, useful
        address block. This proposal makes that leap of faith and says the
        minimum is a /24. It's certainly part and parcel of this process of
      - do recipients of a transfer need to demonstrate need as per APNIC's
        direct allocation and assignment policies?
        The proposer indicated that as the proposal stood, the only point at
        which the recipient has to demonstrate that particular requirement of
        eligibility to me is at the point in time that they come back to APNIC
        for a direct IPv4 allocation, in which case all of their holdings,
        including those obtained by transfer, are then assessed by the policy.
      Following the discussion, there was clear support to continued
      discussion of this proposal
      Next steps
      It would be very helpful to hear your opinions on this proposal. Here are some questions that may help start discussion:
      - Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
      - Should such a proposal be adopted prior to the anticipated point
        of exhaustion of the IPv4 unallocated address pool?
      - Are there risks in not adopting this policy, or something similar? Are
        such risks unacceptable?
      - Should transfers require qualification of the recipient to need to
        demonstrate a need in the same fashion as a direct allocation or
      - How should this relate to NIRs and members of NIRs? Are NIRs bound to
        operate under asn APNIC transfer policy, if adopted by APNIC?
      For more information on the policy proposal, see: