Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits whentransferringaddress
> It was not my intention to point my questions at any
> particular person.
Even if so, your comment is very helpful to understand bad side effect of my idea.
Thank you very much.
> It is not clear to me that refusing to record a transfer changes the
> rate of allocation from the free pool. It might be useful to write
> out explicitly the chain of implication from the refusal to
> the effect
> on allocation. Then we could compare that to the potential harm of
> trying to establish a system of regulation on transfers.
Originally, I was not trying to refuse to record a transfer, but now I understand it may refuse.
Give me some time to consider about this point....
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schnizlein [mailto:schnizlein at isoc dot org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:05 PM
> To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Cc: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits
> whentransferringaddress space
>
> It was not my intention to point my questions at any
> particular person.
>
> >> What would be the effect of a policy to refuse to record a transfer
> >> of which both the relinquishing and acquiring party agree?
> >
> > It can prevent that remaining IPv4 address space in IANA will be
> > consumed very rapidly.
>
> It is not clear to me that refusing to record a transfer changes the
> rate of allocation from the free pool. It might be useful to write
> out explicitly the chain of implication from the refusal to
> the effect
> on allocation. Then we could compare that to the potential harm of
> trying to establish a system of regulation on transfers.
>
> > And it is a intention of prop-072, isn't it?.
>
> I don't think so. My reading of prop-72 is that it constrains
> allocations from the RIR's free pool rather than attempting to
> regulate the transfers. Quote from the proposal:
>
> 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.
>
> >> Would it be good for the Internet as a whole to have
> >> this information not recorded?
> >> Or do you want some organization other than the RIR for
> >> one of the parties to provide this kind of record?
> >
> > I'm afraid that you misunderstood my position.
> > I'm supporting prop-050, so I want to avoid such situation,
> of course.
>
> I am sorry if my questions appeared specific to your position.
>
> It seems to me that the most likely result of refusal of RIRs to
> register transfers is not that transfers will not happen, but that
> someone else will be found to register them if registration
> of who is
> authorized to use an address block is necessary.
>
> >> Policies that constrain what the RIR allocates from its
> pool seem to
> >> risk fewer unintended consequences than attempting to influence the
> >> behavior of other parties.
> >
> > So, your point is "Even if we will restrict transfer of newly
> > allocated address space,
> > somebody will transfer it immediately in underground. In
> such case,
> > information of such address
> > space is not recorded correctly on registry." Is it correct
> > understanding?
>
> If I understand your description, yes. Evidence that transfers have
> already taken place prior to transfer policy - not to mention
> prior to
> exhaustion of the free pool(s) - has been shown here and in other
> RIR's policy discussions.
>
> More than just observing this fact, my goal is to remind people that
> the behavior we can control with these policies is that of the RIR,
> not that of other parties. Policies that attempt to control others
> are likely to have different - and worse - effects than intended.
>
> John
>