Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
Hi,Philip,
My concern about prop-050 is mainly on the process and the time of implement,
I feel now that we still have free pool to allocate, better not to implement
a policy which may encourage the address market; also I think that removing
part of the proposal to reach a consensus break the integrity of the proposal,
Especially those removed parts are critical to mitigate the risk, which
triggered supplement proposals days after the removal.
To answer some of your questions regarding CNNIC, our members do have some
discussion on the transfer proposal, and their views are summurized as following:
Arguments favor the transfer:
--Once the fresh IPv4 allocations pool run out, and IPv6 deployment is not ready,
a mechanism is needed to re-use of the allocated but unused IPv4 resources.
--Transfer creat another source of getting IPv4 resources when the free pool run out.
--It's important to record the IP resources transfer in order to maintain accurate
registration.
--Transfer will encourage redistribution of excess addresses.
Arguments against the transfer:
--Address transfer contradict to the current need based allocation policy
--It attaches a potential 'value' to IP addresses, and may attract some businesses to
apply for more IP addresses than their actual need, there for speed up the
IPv4 addresses consumption.
--It is discriminatory to LIRs in developing countries who have fewer IPv4 resources
than other countries, as they have to pay more to get the addresses they need.
--It implicitly recognize the market of transfer and may encourage the
tranfer market and may change the way IPv4 addresses currently managed.
--It may deaggregate the address block and lead to rapid growth of the routing table.
Generally speaking, we all agree that keep a accurate record is important, but
most of our members don't insist on we must have a transfer policy or we should not
have a transfer policy. They pay more attention to if there are negative impacts and
if those impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level.
We have very few case of IPv4 address transfer in China though, till end of
2008, there are about 298 million internet user in China main land, annual
growth rate is about 41%, we only have about 181 million IPv4 addresses, annual
growth rate is about 34%, so I think there are very few unused address blocks for transfer.
Serveral of the tier-1 ISP in China own large portion of the
IPv4 allocation, when customer no longer use their services, they just get the
addresses back and assign to new custmer when needed, if we can call this
'transfer',that's the way it happen.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Smith" <pfs at cisco dot com>
To: "Terence Zhang Yinghao" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
Cc: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:54 PM
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