[sig-policy] prop-050 and prop-063 (part one)
I've been thinking about two of the policy proposals which are currently
before this list and which will be discussed at APNIC 27 in Manila. The
proposals in question are:
[prop-050] IPv4 address transfers
[prop-067] A simple transfer proposal
It seems to me that these proposals are responses to the more or less
same problem and so it would be better if we could get to the position
where we had one proposal which encapsulated the best features from each
of these documents. I think that would make it much easier for the
community to reach consensus in Manila or at least move closer to that.
I'll only concentrate on the section 4 of the two proposals, as this is
where the "meat" of the proposal lies. To me, the issues fall into the
following categories:
* Size of the address blocks that can be transferred
* Who is allowed to transfer space
* Who can receive space
Size of the address blocks that can be transferred
====
prop-050 states:
"Conditions on the IPv4 address block:
- Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefix
may be transferred.
prop-067 states:
"4.1 An organisation may transfer:
a. An intact allocated block
- Allocated blocks smaller than the current minimum APNIC
allocation size may also be transferred as an intact block.
For example, a legacy /24.
b. One or more subnets of an allocated block, provided no subnet is
smaller than the current minimum APNIC allocation size."
Commentary from me:
These two proposals effectively say the same thing here. prop-050 allows
blocks to be split up into their constituent /24 subnets. And, in
future, when IPv4 address space is at a premium, it's possible that a
lowered minimum allocation size would mean that prop-063 would allow /24
transfers as well.
prop-050 states:
- 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"."
prop-067 states:
4.3 Transfers between regions are permitted providing that:
a. The organisation originating transfer of an address block must
follow the policies of the originating RIR.
b. The organisation receiving an address block must follow the
policies of the receiving RIR.
Commentary from me:
So prop-050 restricts the policy to APNIC only addresses whereas
prop-067 widens the scope to allow transfers between regions.
At first glance this seems a major difference but prop-067 notes that
originating or receiving RIR policies must be followed.
In other words if APNIC adopts a policy like prop-067 then inter-region
transfers will only happen if other RIRs adopt a similar policy.
So perhaps we should leave aside what the other RIRs will do and agree
to look at how inter-region transfers happen later.
Who is allowed to transfer space
====
prop-050 states:
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.
prop-067 states:
4.4 The originating address holder must be the holder of record,
whether a current member, historical, or otherwise.
4.5 If either the origin or recipient of the address block is in the
APNIC region, they should be the holder of a current account in
APNIC or the appropriate NIR.
Commentary from me:
prop-067 make no explicit mention of disputes about status
but it seems a very reasonable condition.
Who can receive space
====
prop-050 states:
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.
prop-067 states:
4.4 The originating address holder must be the holder of record,
whether a current member, historical, or otherwise.
4.5 If either the origin or recipient of the address block is in the
APNIC region, they should be the holder of a current account in
APNIC or the appropriate NIR.
Commentary from me:
The fees issues isn't explicitly discussed in prop-067 but the
requirement for current membership in section 4.5 would appear to cover
it if combined with the "APNIC member fee schedule: tiers, fees, and
descriptions" document
(http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.html)
I'd like to assert that there's no substantive difference to the two
proposals in the points described above.
I think you could take the three sections above from prop-050, add a
section that said APNIC would seek to coordinate transfers between
regions when other RIRs had worked out their policies on this matter and
it really wouldn't change prop-063 materially.
Conversely you could take section 4 from prop-067, add a paragraph that
acknowledged that until other RIRs agreed similar policies then this
would be an APNIC only process and you could drop it into prop-050 and
it wouldn't materially change it either.
Now if this was all there was in section 4 of prop-050 then we might be
in good shape to combine the two proposals but we have two more
paragraphs to deal with.
* Address transfer process
* Fees
But this email is getting very long, so I'll post more about them in my
next email .