[sig-policy] Comments for prop-106 and prop-105.
We held an event named as "Opinion Collection Meeting about Proposal
in APNIC 35 Hosted by Policy-WG".
The purpose of the this event is as follows:
- Explanation of prop-106 and prop-105 by proposer and JPNIC secretariat.
- Opinion collection about prop-106 and prop-105 from Japanese community.
- Encourage to participation in APNIC35 meeting.
We had 8 participants on this event.
All presentations and discussions were in Japanese.
As a result, We got opinions and comments for each proposal.
I hope these comments and opinions would help in the discussions at
APNIC forum.
=======================================================================
prop-106 Restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the final /8
block
=======================================================================
* Agree the issue being raised is against the spirit of the final /8
policy but it may not be desirable to put a uniform restriction. There
may be cases which genuinely needs to transfer the final /8space, such
as M&A.
* People who transfer the final /8 space are likely to find ways around
to receive the space even if we add restrictions on the policy. Not sure
how effective applying this policy proposal could be.
* It may be more effective to set an upper limit on the final /8 space a
single APNIC account holder can hold, and request to return any space
over the set limit.
* Understand the concern raised by the proposers but the transferred
space is 1.5% out of the total 103/8 space being delegated which is
small in proportion, so reasons are weak to support the proposal
=======================================================================
prop-105 Distribution of returned IPv4 address (Modification of prop-088)
=======================================================================
*There are areas in developing countries where we still need to
encourage the internet development itself. It would be good to have a
scheme defined in this proposal which may help those areas, where they
may not necessarily be able to prepare IPv6 ready equipment.
* It is not the intention of this proposal to discourage IPv6
deployment. It is confirmed by the survey that those who wish to receive
additional IPv4 space have high % of IPv6 address holdings and are
preparing for IPv6 deployment in parallel. I believe registries such as
JPNIC, APNIC will also continue to promote IPv6 deployment.
* Regarding the point raised in APNIC mailing list that this proposal
does not solve real problems, 40% of the survey respondents replied that
they are happy to receive a /22. It would help meet such needs.
* The proposal defines that an organization is not eligible to receive
the proposed additional space until it utilizes 103/8 delegation
received, so it has been carefully defined that the additional IPv4
space will be distributed to those who really need them.
* Rather than appearing to have some stocks of IPv4 address space in
reserves, people may get over it and move to IPv6 easier if we
distribute them out.
* If this policy is not adopted, the returned space is not likely to be
re-distributed until 2030, where the current 103/8 is estimated to run
out. This may be considered as prolonging the life of IPv4, rather than
promoting for IPv6 deployment.
* It will look as though the returned IPv4 is reserved as dead storage.
There is a risk leading to concerns of some people that they cannot
leave address management to registries who maintain such policies. We
should discuss how we should manage the returned IPv4 space well as the
community.
====
Best regards,
---
TACHIBANA toshio