Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
For time issue, I really didn't expect that long, thank you and Sam for
clarifying the time of implentation. But given from http://www.potaroo.net,
Projected IANA Unallocated Address Pool Exhaustion: 06-May-2011,
Projected RIR Unallocated Address Pool Exhaustion: 01-Sep-2012 ,
I still feel it's not neccessary for the proposal to take effect 'as soon as
the APNIC Secretariat can implement the mechanisms of the policy'.
Firstly, I think the numbers of transfer aren't significant yet,
secondly, I think the later we have a transfer policy, the longer those dealers
would have to wait to formally transfer, or they would have to tranfer
in a black market, which increase their investment and the risk,
and their return will be more likely impacted by the implementation of IPv6,
there for make the investment less attractive,which will encourage
address request from regular allocation channel. So, I will be more comfortable
if transfer policy will take effect some time near the final /8.
I listed our member's views just to answer your question, those are
summary of the discussions, doesn't suggest those are all we discussed about
transfer and doesn't suggest whether I support those ideas or not.
And we have already shared our views in the past 3 APNIC meeting.
FYI, there are very few transfer requests in CNNIC yet, except for mergers
and acquisitions, we did let them return those addresses to APNIC.
Regards
Terence
----- 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: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
> Hi Terence,
>
> Terence Zhang Yinghao said the following on 20/3/09 11:26:
>>
>> 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;
>
> But there is a difference between preparing a policy for implementation,
> and actually implementing it. That's why I was asking how long you think
> we need to discuss the policy proposal so that it would be ready to be
> implemented. Sam has just replied saying that implementation might need
> 6 months after EC endorsement. So that's a minimum of 6 months after
> reaching consensus, which means consensus has to be achieved at least 6
> months before we need to implement the policy.
>
> What I thought we were discussing right now is a policy that we can
> implement when it is required.
>
> Are you suggesting that we don't even discuss what we should implement
> until we no longer have a free pool to allocate from?
>
>> 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:
>
> Are these recent views, following the APNIC meeting in Manila? If they
> were accumulated over the last two years, it's a great pity they
> couldn't have been shared with the entire community from when Geoff
> first brought the transfer issue to our attention.
>
>> 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.
>
> Did they have suggestions as to what this mechanism might be? Mechanisms
> for reclaiming unused but allocated or assigned address space have been
> tested ever since the Internet moved from classful to classless routing,
> and I wouldn't say they were that successful. Saying a mechanism is
> needed is fine, but what is it?
>
> What we do know, from the real world out there, is that when there is a
> shortage of a resource, people will do anything to obtain some more. It
> might not have been the case in China, but when the price of oil was
> around US$150 per barrel, the price of petrol and diesel reflected that
> extreme price. There were shortages at fuel filling stations, large
> queues, and very high prices in many countries around the world.
>
>> Arguments against the transfer:
>>
>> --Address transfer contradict to the current need based allocation policy
>
> I think we are all in agreement here, and have been probably for the
> last 2 years this has been discussed. But it doesn't help us with
> dealing with the issue that people out there are actually transferring
> addresses already...
>
>> --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.
>
> IPv4 addresses have had a "value" for a long time. Companies that
> collapsed in the dotcom bust in 2000/1 had their assets taken over by
> other companies. These assets included the IPv4 address allocations used
> for existing networks which were taken over by the purchaser.
>
> Is there a problem with a speed up of IPv4 address consumption? We only
> need to shout "petrol shortage" on the radio or television and people
> will queue up at filling stations to fill up - even though they probably
> don't need to and there is no real shortage. We more than likely will
> see a speed up of IPv4 address consumption anyway, whether there is a
> transfer policy or not.
>
>> --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.
>
> As long as there is a free pool of IPv4 addresses, everyone can go to
> their RIR and get address space. When there is no longer any free IPv4
> addresses around, people will be swapping addresses for money, whether
> APNIC has a transfer policy or not. And when they pay for address space,
> it discriminates against those who cannot afford the huge rates that
> will be charged. And that won't be just developing countries either! ;-)
>
>> --It implicitly recognize the market of transfer and may encourage the
>> tranfer market and may change the way IPv4 addresses currently managed.
>
> That's very possible, I agree. What would the CNNIC members suggest
> would be a better alternative? Transfers are happening right now, like
> it or not, so we need to find a responsible way of handling the
> situation. Hence the discussion that's been ongoing for the last 2 years
> or so. :-)
>
>> --It may deaggregate the address block and lead to rapid growth of the
>> routing table.
>
> Of course it will. But given that many ISPs are wilfully deaggregating
> anyway, with impunity, this is just more noise in an already noisy
> routing system. Take a look at www.cidr-report.org for some stunning
> examples of existing badness.
>
>> 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.
>
> Any suggestions on how to keep an accurate record while dealing with the
> situation where some organisations are transferring address space to
> each other? And how to avoid abusing the system?
>
> Because that's what's been keeping us quite busy for a long time now.
>
> It's fine to propose conditions, but they do need to be backed up with
> what the details might be, so I would definitely welcome suggestions.
>
>> 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.
>
> Very few cases is not the same as zero cases. Given that transfers
> currently are not allowed under APNIC policy, I assume that CNNIC went
> to these organisations and successfully retrieved the transferred
> addresses for reuse? If CNNIC didn't do this, what did you do, and how
> can you justify that action when there is no policy to cover it?
>
>> 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.
>
> No, that's not a transfer. That's the proper operation of PA space.
>
> If one of the CNNIC members received address space from you, decided
> they didn't need it and "gave" it to someone else to use rather than
> give it back to you, that's the type of transfer we are talking about here.
>
> philip