1. Since APNIC promoting the use of
IPV6 in the community.
2. Why not just let the existing allocating
of IPV4 pool take it natural course, and if any IPV4 not use must be return
to APNIC make it available for allocation as per normal. If company decided
to keep it then good luck to them. The cost associate with IP allocation
is due to the management maintenance of the IP, NOT because each IP address
is a commodity for trading.
3. In the event of a company apply for
IP address. APNIC can allocate it either from any IPV4 address available
from the return IPV4 pool address or provide them with the
IPV6 pool.
4. I know that some of you might argue
that but what if the company is asking for IPV4. Then they should
be looking at IPV6 deployment.
This prevent the idea of trading/swapping
etc...
Anyway, I thought I share my thought
with this group.
Thanks.
Vinh.
Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com> Sent by: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
19/03/2009 03:54 PM
To
Terence Zhang Yinghao <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
cc
sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject
Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
Hello Terence,
Given that prop-050 has been around for about 2 years now (initially as
a discussion paper before it became a full fledged proposal), what are
CNNIC's members' views and discussion outcomes that you have been
involved with and gathered over those last 2 years?
We've heard very little from the NIR membership apart from lots of great
input from JPNIC and their community, so it would be helpful to know how
your membership would deal with trying to solve the existing problem of
IPv4 address space being transferred between entities in this region.
In a shortage, people do anything and everything, including breaking
"laws", so we can't deny that transfers don't and won't happen.
We can't
even say "don't allow transfers until they are needed" - we either
put
something in place that ensures that there is a documented record of who
is holding which address block, or we ignore it and the Internet
gradually stops working.
To one of your suggestions, how is CNNIC encouraging unused IPv4 address
space to be returned to the free pool? Have you had any recent successes
that can be shared with the rest of the community? Any strategies that
you can recommend?
When there is no longer a free pool to allocate from, how much time
would it take for the entire APNIC community (including all the NIR
membership) to come up with a policy that permitted transfers? Could we
do it in a week, or a month, do you think? Given that prop-050 has been
around for 2 years, I think we might have to err on the longer side
don't you think? Perhaps an implementation timeframe for prop-050 would
help? What should it be?
Out of interest, and this is a question for APNIC I haven't seen
directly asked before, how long would it take for the Secretariat to
implement a transfer policy, assuming a proposal like prop-050 is
successful?
Anyway, if you can share what CNNIC and the CNNIC membership have been
discussing about the IPv4 run-out and transfer issue over the last 2
years, that'd be greatly appreciated by all and be really helpful for
ongoing discussion here. :-)
Thanks!
philip
--
Terence Zhang Yinghao said the following on 19/3/09 12:48:
> Dear All,
>
> I've been thinking a lot about recent proposals regarding
> IPv4 transfer,and want to express my reservations
> concerning those transfer proposals.
>
> First of all, I do believe the proposals have good intend,
> record transfer to ensure address registration accuracy.
>
> But I feel that introducing a transfer at present time
> will cause many side effects, some backdoors and loopholes
> have been discussed in the mailinglist, in addition to that,
> a transfer policy implicitly recognizes a market
> of tranfer and attaches a potential 'value' to IP addresses,
> which may attract some businesses to apply for more IP addresses
> than their actual need, there for speed up the IPv4 addresses
> consumption.
>
> I understand proposal071/072 are trying to deal with those issues,
> but I think a policy proposal should has its integrity,
> I also realize that proposal 050 have some safeguards in earlier
> version, but dropped in order to reach a consensus, but
> few days later, two new proposals are introduced to supplement
> proposal 050, trying to mitigate it's risk. So I think
> proposal 050 is not that mature.
>
> More to the point, I feel that policies deal with transfer
> will be easily involved with financial and even legal issues,
> and to address those issues may be very complex.
> So I would suggest we only have transfer policy
> when it's absolutely neccessary. Right now we
> still have free pool to allocate, we should encourage
> getting address through regular channel and returning address
> to RIR when it's no longer in use.
>
> Terence
> China Internet Network Information Center
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * 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
* 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