Re: [sig-policy] REVISED: prop-066-v003: Ensuring efficient use of histo
- To: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>, Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] REVISED: prop-066-v003: Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources
- From: David Woodgate <David.Woodgate at telstra dot net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:52:00 +1000
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <200808260547.m7Q5lgb2095648 at burn dot telstra dot net>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <48AE6B8F.email@example.com> <200808260547.m7Q5lgb2095648@burn.telstra.net>
A reliable source has told me that generally historical resources transferred to APNIC accounts are *not* usually assessed at the moment for usage compliance; my experience is apparently exceptional. :-)
This means the first assumption in my last email is (generally) incorrect, so that there is a valid reason for prop-066 - but for the other reasons listed below it will only be applicable for resources that have already been transferred into APNIC accounts.
On other matters, I notice that version 3 of the proposal now has definitions of what qualifies as historical space - thank you for this. However, I note that section 4 still actually just says:
"This is a proposal to modify the criteria for receiving IPv4 address space so that historical resources are included."
I still feel that this sentence is structurally wrong, in that it doesn't actually state *how* the criteria are changed. (In what are the historical resources included?)
How about something like "This is a proposal that, as part of a member's request for additional address space, the assessment of appropriate use of the member's previous address space includes consideration of any historical resources listed in the member's account, as well as their previous address allocations by APNIC."?
I will happy to support this proposal once this sentence is appropriately clarified in line with what I believe is the proposal's intent.
Regards, David At 03:47 PM 26/08/2008, David Woodgate wrote:
I've just had a disturbing thought about this proposal: - I believe that any historical resources that are transferred into a member's APNIC account are already included in justifications for further address space in requests; - Therefore any resources covered by this proposal have *not* been transferred into a member's APNIC account. - Effectively, APNIC doesn't recognise the "ownership" of resources unless they have been transferred into a member's account (through a process of supplying proof or stat dec.) - Therefore a member cannot simply arbitrarily claim to hold an historical resource (and neither can APNIC associate it with a member); - So a member cannot suddenly include a non-transferred historical resource within an address request. - Therefore, this proposal cannot be applied (or at least is redundant for resources that have already been transferred). I'm very happy to have this logic questioned by anyone on this list. (Please remember that I actually support the aim of this proposal - I'm just not sure now that it can actually achieve anything!) Regards, David* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *_______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy