Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring addres
Hash: SHA1
hi,
I support this proposal.
thanks
-gaurab
Randy Bush wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> 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.
> * 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkm6JMcACgkQSo7fU26F3X1HwwCeMaxtgrhHuxjPxqvVhn1rxU9d
6gIAn1vSpZn2cyVUYsxyLprVxMHjSDcx
=sOwc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----