Re: [sig-policy] prop-066: Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 res
>
> I support the principle of prop-066 as being an appropriate improvement
> in management processes as we approach IPv4 address exhaustion.
>
> It does strike me though that this will rely on an honour system from
> requestors:
>
> - An ISP that attempts to comply with this proposal by declaring their
> historical space will incur extra work and risk some disadvantage (i.e.
> potential denial of additional addresses if APNIC staff believe that the
> use of the previous space is not adequately explained), whereas
>
> - An ISP that does not declare their historical space would appear to
> have little risk of penalty, as it is unlikely that APNIC would be in a
> position to say "these historical addresses are definitely yours, so you
> must declare them".
yes. that was a question that came up to my mind as well.
how would APNIC associate LIR and historical address holder?
there could be cases where an LIR holds historical address space, but
netname is registered differently (due to change in org name, etc) and
it will remain unnoticed.
there were a few other questions/concerned expressed from members in JP
which were:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Could such historical space be treated the same way as portable
allocations and allowed to make assignments to other organizations?
(if not, it is likely to be diffcult to use it only within
infrastructure and not to receive subsequent allocations for customer
assignments)
+ Would the usage in LIR's LAN (for servers, routers, etc) outside of
their ISP service be considered as utilized?
(if it won't be considered as utilized, what is the rationale?)
+ How does APNIC/NIR hostmasters evaluate whether the space is
efficiently utilized? If this criteria is vague, it is difficult for
LIRs to know what is the definition of "efficient" utilization and take
necessary actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concern:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(probably not surprisingly)
+ Concerns were expressed from LIRs holding historical address space
that since historical address space and standard portable allocations
are assigned for different purpose, it is difficult to
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
# I will ask more details about why this would be of a concern, but
simply passing the comment for now
To summarize, in principle, JPNIC sympathize with the proposal, but
would like to clarify these points before making the decision.
thanks,
izumi