[sig-policy] Fwd: End of comment period: prop-104: Clarifying demonstrat

  • To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] Fwd: End of comment period: prop-104: Clarifying demonstrated needs requirement in IPv4 transfer policy
  • From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
  • Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:57:39 +1300
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lpnz.org; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=I0Rak4Sjg18c0aUuZbtmW52NJqRTt7p6O6GRoae2MQk=; b=VeM/H3aZdgF1CElu7JK5krsVcAlRqwWN2ne3eQT8dmjs+SGWf4OJJ+s5P27Kkk+XrM sewPhW/SQ71WcB8zJyQ+0GxzRPKJF3E7K/Vp5F7kMtc5elCfMyYRAvUs0+cAabHscjcJ JG3/tKuMzbjDXumI47vtPzmSS4yo5oAKJH6l4=
  • In-reply-to: <CALS-_OptUAmHaxXGgxw-O3e-JMYh7vGEbgfNsLuaPXmgPH-=Dw at mail dot gmail dot com>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <CALS-_OptUAmHaxXGgxw-O3e-JMYh7vGEbgfNsLuaPXmgPH-=Dw@mail.gmail.com>
    • Sorry for the delay in posting these messages. I and the other members of the chair group had some problems posting to the sig-policy mailing list. Thanks to the APNIC staff for sorting things out.


      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
      Date: Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:40 PM
      Subject: End of comment period: prop-104: Clarifying demonstrated needs requirement in IPv4 transfer policy
      To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>


      ____________________________________________________________________

      prop-104: Clarifying demonstrated needs requirement in IPv4
      Â Â Â Â Â transfer policy

      _____________________________________________________________________


      Dear colleagues

      The eight-week final comment period for the proposal 'Clarifying
      demonstrated needs requirement in IPv4 transfer policy' has ended.

      During the comment period there were no significant objections raised to the
      proposal. The Chairs therefore deem that consensus has been maintained
      on the proposal.

      We formally request that the APNIC Executive Council endorse this
      proposal.

      For a detailed history of this proposal see:

      Â Â Â Â Â http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-104

      Regards

      APNIC Policy SIG Chairs

      Andy, Masato and Skeeve



      ----------------------------------------------------------------------

      prop-104-v002: Clarifying demonstrated needs requirement in IPv4
      Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âtransfer policy

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------


      Authors: Shin SHIRAHATA
      Â Â Â Â Â <shin at clara dot ad dot jp>

      Â Â Â Â Â Norisuke HIRAI
      Â Â Â Â Â Akira NAKAGAWA


      1. ÂIntroduction
      ----------------

      This proposal defines the period to be approved of IPv4 transfers for
      recipients under demonstrated needs.


      2. ÂSummary of the current problem
      ----------------------------------

      The current APNIC transfer policy has a requirement for demonstrate a
      need for transferred IPv4 addresses. The period of demonstrated needs
      under the current operational practice is 12 months based on the
      definition in Section 3.2, "Criteria for subsequent LIR delegations" in
      the "Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific
      region",

      "Based on these factors, APNIC and NIRs will delegate address space to
      meet the LIR's estimated needs for a period up to one year up to the
      maximum allowed delegation under Section 3."

      and this period was defined before the exhaustion.

      On the other hand, ARIN allows transfers based on demonstrated needs up
      to 24 months. This leads to difference in conditions of the transfer
      between LIRs in the APNIC region and the ARIN region.

      Furthermore, 12 months is also too short for transfers within the APNIC
      region considering many xSPs plan their service and their addressing
      requirements beyond one year.


      3. ÂSituation in other RIRs
      ---------------------------

      ARIN has a requirement for the period to be approved of IPv4 transfers
      for recipients under demonstrated needs, up to 24 months. LACNIC has a
      policy that defines to evaluate for 12 months needs. RIPE NCC has 3
      months requirement at this time, and the policy proposal that extend to
      24 months, is under discussion.

      AfriNIC:

      AfriNIC currently does not have an IPv4 address transfers policy.


      ARIN:

      ARIN policy has a clear period for justification for IPv4 address
      transfers, and the period is 24 months.

      "Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by
      organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the
      need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under
      current ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within
      24 months."

      See Section 8.3, "Transfers to Specified Recipients" in the "ARIN Number
      Resource Policy Manual":

      Â Â Âhttps://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight3

      This change was proposed by "DRAFT POLICY ARIN-2012-1: CLARIFYING
      REQUIREMENTS FOR IPV4 TRANSFERS".

      Â Â Âhttps://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_1.html


      LACNIC:

      LACNIC policy defines to evaluate for 12 months needs for the recipient
      of the IPv4 address transfer. However, the transfer will only be
      activate once LACNIC's address pool runs out. (expect for the reserved
      space)

      See Section 2.3.2.13, "Submission of Assignment Information" and Section
      2.3.2.18.2, "Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region" in the
      LACNIC Policy Manual (v1.9):

      Â Â Âhttp://lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual3.html


      RIPE:

      In the RIPE region, the period of needs approved for IPv4 address
      transfers will be based on the definition of the current allocation
      policy, which is 3 months.

      Currently, there is no policy which defines the period of needs based
      justification, specifically for IPv4 transfers, separate from allocation
      criteria. See Section 5.0, "Policies and Guidelines for Allocations" in
      the RIPE-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the
      RIPE NCC Service Region:"

      Â Â Âhttp://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-553/

      However, there is a policy proposal under discussions which proposes to
      extend the period of the demonstrated needs in case of IPv4 transfers,
      up to 24 months. See 2012-03, "Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal".

      Â Â Âhttp://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03


      4. ÂDetails
      -----------

      This proposal clarifies the requirement on a period approved for the
      transferred resource to recipients of IPv4 transfers based on the
      demonstrated needs, and defines its period as "24 months".

      This proposal does not intend to change the requirement for an address
      allocation or assignment from APNIC.


      5. ÂPros/Cons
      -------------

      Advantages:

      Â Â Â- Extended period will allow the larger block size to match a
      Â Â Â Âlonger term needs of the requester. It will help to reduce an
      Â Â Â ÂIPv4 address block fragmentation caused by transfer.

      Â Â Â- APNIC member can apply for IPv4 address transfer as a receiver on
      Â Â Â Âthe same condition of demonstrate a need in other RIR in case of
      Â Â Â ÂInter-RIR transfer. At this time, ARIN is the only RIR that
      Â Â Â Âadopts Inter-RIR policy in place other than APNIC. Thus, it
      Â Â Â Âplaces APNIC policy in line with ARIN on the transfer conditions.

      Â Â Â- It will allow the block size to more closely match the block size
      Â Â Â Âavailable for transfer from source.

      Â Â Â- It will reduce the risk of underground IPv4 address transfers,
      Â Â Â Âwhich do not get registered in APNIC database. There is a
      Â Â Â Âpossibility that the recipients could not obtain justification
      Â Â Â Âfor enough IPv4 address by the current period of demonstrated
      Â Â Â Âneeds.

      Disadvantages:

      Â Â Â- None

      Â Â Â ÂThere may be people who feel 24 months does not lead to efficient
      Â Â Â Âutilization compared to 12 months.

      Â Â Â ÂHowever, the objective of needs based justification is not to
      Â Â Â Â"cut the size of address space to be transfered"; it is to ensure
      Â Â Â Âthat the transfered space will be utilized in realities. 24
      Â Â Â Âmonths is a realistic period to estimate required address space
      Â Â Â Âfor xSPs.


      6. ÂEffect on APNIC Members
      ---------------------------

      It will requires a recipients within the APNIC region must demonstrate
      the need for up to a 24 months use of IPv4 address block.


      7. ÂEffect on NIRs
      ------------------

      It is the NIR's choice as to whether to adopt this policy.