Re: [sig-policy] prop-071: Justifying receiving IPv4 address space
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Skeeve Stevens
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2009 10:59 AM
> To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: RE: [sig-policy] prop-071: Justifying receiving IPv4 address
> space
>
> I VERY much do NOT support this proposal.
>
> A timeframe which stops you getting any address space from APNIC is
> unacceptable.
>
> In this day and age of business things can change very very quickly.
>
> A business might have some address space available, business is slow
> and not looking great or some such, they sell/transfer off some address
> space to another party. A few months (arbitrary amount of time) later,
> the mother of all deals falls into their laps and they can justify a
> lot of address space.
>
> So someone could transfer a /24 and then suddenly need a /18 and not be
> entitled to get it? You have to be kidding me.
>
> No-one can predict the flow of business next month, much less 2 years
> into the future.
>
> Legally 'restraint of trade' comes to mind in Australia.
>
> This proposal, which I understand is the original wording, is
> unacceptable and should not be brought in.
>
> Perhaps if it were worded in some way (don't know how) that they were
> not able to get the SAME AMOUNT of address space they gave away - for a
> shorter time... but I still think this is fraught with dangers.
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> --
> Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
> eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
> skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
> Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
> --
> NOC, NOC, who's there?
>
> Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the
> named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private
> proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly
> or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of
> this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd
> and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve
> the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
> except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised
> to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to
> costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to
> contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by
> an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made
> to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that
> attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not
> accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems
> experienced.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
> > bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
> > Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2009 8:17 PM
> > To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> > Subject: [sig-policy] prop-071: Justifying receiving IPv4 address
> space
> >
> > Dear SIG members
> >
> > The policy proposal 'Justifying receiving IPv4 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-071-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-071: Justifying receiving IPv4 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 requiring recipients of transferred IPv4 address space
> > to
> > justify its use.
> >
> >
> > 2. Summary of current problem
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Prop-050, "IPv4 address transfers", as it stands at time of writing,
> > places no requirement on the recipient of transferred IPv4 address
> > space
> > to justify their need for the additional address space before APNIC
> > registers the transfer.
> >
> > This can allow any organisation the opportunity to stockpile IPv4
> > address space, 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 permits transfers to take
> > place if the recipient can justify the need for address space to
> the
> > RIPE NCC. Recipients of transfers cannot transfer any portion of
> > that
> > address space to another organisation within 24 months. See:
> >
> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html
> >
> > ARIN
> >
> > The transfer policy specifically states the justification
> conditions
> > under which transfers are permitted in the ARIN region - see
> section
> > 8.2 at:
> >
> > 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:
> >
> > 4.1 Until such a time when the prevailing APNIC IPv4 allocation
> > practice uses the "final /8" policy [1], the recipient of a
> > transfer is to justify use of transferred space using the
> > allocation and assignment policies in force at the time of the
> > transfer.
> >
> > 4.2 After that time, no justification is needed.
> >
> > 4.3 Recipients of transferred address space are not permitted to
> > transfer any portion of this address space to another
> > organisation for at least 24 months.
> >
> >
> > 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 5.1 Advantages
> >
> > - Recipients of IPv4 address transfers will have to fully
> justify
> > receiving the address space, just as they do for any current
> > direct allocations or assignments from the APNIC pool.
> >
> > 5.2 Disadvantages
> >
> > - None.
> >
> >
> > 6. Effect on APNIC members
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > The proposal impacts all APNIC members in that they now will have to
> > fully justify transfers they receive under proposal-050.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > 8. References
> > --------------
> >
> > [1] See section 9.10, "Policies for IPv4 address space
> > management in the Asia Pacific region"
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy.html#9.10
> > * 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