[sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring address sp

  • To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring address space
  • From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
  • Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:18:21 -0700
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • User-agent: SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.7 Emacs/22.3 (i386-apple-darwin9.6.0) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
    • 
      The policy proposal 'Reapplication limits when transferring address
      space' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented
      at the Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 24-28 August 2009. The
      proposal's history can be found at:
      
             http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-072-v001.html
      
      We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing
      list before the meeting.
      
      The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is
      an important part of the policy development process. We encourage
      you to express your views on the proposal:
      
            - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
            - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
              so, tell the community about your situation.
            - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
            - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
            - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
              effective?
      
      Randy, Jian, and Ching-Heng
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring address space
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      
      Author:    Philip Smith
                  pfs at cisco dot com
      
      Version:   1
      
      Date:      10 March 2009
      
      1.  Introduction
      ----------------
      
      This policy proposal seeks to supplement prop-050, "IPv4 address
      transfers", by not permitting organisations who have transferred IPv4
      address from obtaining more address space from APNIC for a period of 24
      months after the transfer.
      
      
      2.  Summary of current problem
      ------------------------------
      
      Prop-050, "IPv4 address transfers", as it stands at time of writing,
      places no restriction on the organisation transferring IPv4 address
      space to return to APNIC for additional IPv4 address space.
      
      This gives organisations the opportunity to transfer their IPv4 address
      space to another organisation, and return to APNIC almost immediately
      with a fully justified application for additional resources. This means
      that organisations could rapidly deplete the remaining IPv4 pool, to the
      detriment of the entire industry during the IPv4 runout period.
      
      
      3.  Situation in other RIRs
      ---------------------------
      
      RIPE NCC
      
          The transfer policy adopted by RIPE only places no limits on any
          organisation transferring address space to a third party from going
          back to the RIPE NCC for further IPv4 address space. See:
      
             http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html
      
      ARIN
      
         The transfer policy notes that transfers of address space between
         organisations are only considered if the originating organisation has
         made a complete transfer of assets to the recipient (such as a
         liquidation of the originating organisation). See:
      
           http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_8.html
      
      LACNIC
      
         LACNIC is currently discussing a transfer proposal:
      
           LAC-2009-04 Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region
           http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-en.pdf
      
      AfriNIC has no transfer policy.
      
      
      4.  Details of the proposal
      ---------------------------
      
      It is proposed that organisations disposing of their space using the
      transfer policy described in prop-050, "IPv4 address transfers", are not
      eligible for APNIC IPv4 assignments and/or allocations for two years.
      
      
      5.  Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
      ------------------------------------------------
      
      5.1 Advantages
      
           - Organisations transferring address space to third parties can not
             go back to APNIC and request additional IPv4 address space for a
             period of 24 months.  This prevents organisations from making
             frequent and repeated requests to APNIC, and then transferring
             the address space elsewhere.
      
      5.2 Disadvantages
      
           - None.
      
      
      6.  Effect on APNIC Members
      ---------------------------
      
      The proposal impacts all APNIC members in that they now cannot receive
      more address space from the APNIC free pool for a full 24 months after
      they have made a transfer to another organisation.
      
      
      7.  Effect on NIRs
      ------------------
      
      The proposal has no direct impact on NIRs, but impacts members of NIRs
      in the same way it impacts APNIC members.