Re: [sig-policy] prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address trans

  • To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the final /8 block
  • From: (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) <fujisaki at syce dot net>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:51:45 +0900 (JST)
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <20130222.221151.263718018.fujisaki at syce dot net>
  • 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-_OpULYxmjRurZh7d=SsCUfgvvkW1PUjTMSbzj9zzKPeZDQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130222.221151.263718018.fujisaki@syce.net>
    • Hi all,
      
      We revised our proposal as attached.
      
      # We've already sent this updated text to the Secretariat, and will
      # be published soon.
      
      We're really appreciate if you give us any comments.
      
      Yours Sincerely,
      --
      Tomohiro Fujiaki
      
      From: (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) <fujisaki at syce dot net>
      Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the final /8 block
      Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:11:51 +0900 (JST)
      
       | 
       | Hi all,
       | 
       | I'm co-author of the policy prop-106.
       | 
       | We got several messages, and most of them were against to restrict
       | transfers in the policy.
       | 
       | However, at the same time, we felt most people are against this proposal
       | because problems are not big enough, and not necessarily saying the
       | misuse of 103/8 block  (final /8 policy) itself is okay.
       | 
       | Even if not in the form of a policy document, it may help to have it
       | documented somewhere because there is nothing APNIC documents which
       | APNIC/NIR hostmasters can refer to and point out when they find a case
       | of misuse.
       | 
       | So, we would like to change our proposal to describe the spilt of /8
       | policy and remarks spirit in the guideline document such as:
       | 
       |     - IPv4 address transfer under 103/8 block may not be approved, in
       |       cases where APNIC/NIRs considers that it does not match with the
       |       spirit of the final /8 policy.
       | 
       | This would allow APNIC/NIRs referring to the guidelines document, when
       | they find the case of misuse.
       | 
       | Yours Sincerely,
       | --
       | Tomohiro Fujisaki
       | 
       | 
       | From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
       | Subject: [sig-policy] prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the final /8 block
       | Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:24:25 +0600
       | 
       |  | Dear SIG Members
       |  | 
       |  | The proposal "prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address
       |  | transfers under the final /8 block' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
       |  | 
       |  | It will be discussed at the Policy SIG at APNIC 35 in Singapore,
       |  | Thursday 28 February 2013.
       |  | 
       |  | We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
       |  | before the meeting.
       |  | 
       |  | The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
       |  | important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
       |  | express your views on the proposal:
       |  | 
       |  |           - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
       |  |           - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
       |  |             so, tell the community about your situation.
       |  |           - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
       |  |           - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
       |  |           - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
       |  |             effective?
       |  | 
       |  | Information about this proposal is available from:
       |  | 
       |  |             https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-106
       |  | 
       |  | Andy, Skeeve, Masato
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       |  | 
       |  | prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the
       |  |                final /8 block
       |  | 
       |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | Authors:    Shin SHIRAHATA shin at clara dot ad dot jp
       |  |             Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki at syce dot net
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 1. Introduction
       |  | ---------------
       |  | 
       |  | This policy proposes to restricting IPv4 address transfers which
       |  | were allocated/assigned from the final /8 block.
       |  | 
       |  | Based on our observations of the APNIC transfer history records,
       |  | some LIRs seems to collect IPv4 address blocks under the final /8
       |  | range by using multiple accounts, and transfer these blocks to
       |  | a single account. We believe this kind of behaviors are against
       |  | the spirit of the final /8 policy.
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 2. Summary
       |  | ----------
       |  | 
       |  | The current APNIC IPv4 address transfer policy allows to obtain
       |  | a maximum of /22 distribution(s) per each APNIC account holder.
       |  | 
       |  | We propose add a restriction to IPv4 address transfer policy to
       |  | restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the final /8
       |  | block.
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 3. Situation in other RIRs
       |  | --------------------------
       |  | 
       |  | No similar policy at other RIRs.
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 4. Details
       |  | ----------
       |  | 
       |  | There are options to handle this problem.
       |  | 
       |  | Option 1: Restrict IPv4 address transfers under the final /8 address
       |  |           block for two years.
       |  | 
       |  |     - Prohibits transfers of the address block for two years after
       |  |       receiving the distribution under the final /8 address block.
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | Option 2: Set a deposit for transfers under the final /8 range.
       |  | 
       |  |     - Pay ten years of APNIC's annual fees for transfered address
       |  |       block in advance when receiving the final /8 address range
       |  |       by address transfer or account name change.
       |  | 
       |  |       If an APNIC account holder transfers the final /8 range, the
       |  |       rights associated with the advanced payment of the annual fees
       |  |       will get dissolved, and the transfer recipient must pay the
       |  |       annual fees just the same as regular APNIC account holders.
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 5. Pros/Cons
       |  | ------------
       |  | 
       |  | Advantages:
       |  | 
       |  |     - Restricting the last /8 address range to concentrate on a
       |  |       particular account holder
       |  | 
       |  |     - Matches with the spirit of the final /8 policy
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | Disadvantages:
       |  | 
       |  |     - The changes may increase an incentive of underground transfers.
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 6. Effect on APNIC
       |  | ------------------
       |  | 
       |  | Transfers from the final /8 address range will be restricted in
       |  | principle
       |  | 
       |  | 
       |  | 7. Effect on NIRs
       |  | -----------------
       |  | 
       |  | NIRs need to adopt this 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
       |  | 
       | 
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      prop-106-v002: Clarifying operational practices in the APNIC region for
      transfers under the final /8 delegation
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      
      Authors:    Shin SHIRAHATA shin at clara dot ad dot jp
                  Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki at syce dot net
      
      
      
      1. Introduction
      ---------------
      
      The current APNIC IPv4 address management policy clearly states that
      "each new or existing APNIC account holder is only eligible to request
      and receive delegations totalling a maximum /22 worth of address space
      from the APNIC IPv4 address pool."
      
      When the final /8 policy was implemented, the possible loophole to the
      policy was pointed out for people who try to obtain multiple /22s from
      the final /8 block. It was argued it can be addressed by the APNIC
      secretariat taking adequate actions when it finds such cases.
      
      However, there are no clearly written descriptions in APNIC documents
      for the secretariat to refer to, in order to take operational measures
      for such cases.
      
      Based on our observations of the APNIC transfer history records, some
      LIRs seems to collect IPv4 address blocks under the final /8 range by
      using multiple accounts, and transfer these blocks to a single account.
      
      We believe having a clearly described operational guidelines for the
      APNIC secretariat would help them take adequate actions when they find
      such cases.
      
      
      2. Summary
      ----------
      
      This policy proposes to clearly define, as the operational guidelines
      that APNIC may not approve transfers under the final /8 block for cases
      against the spirit of the final /8 policy.
      
      The current number of "misused" transfers may not be large enough to
      apply restrictions as APNIC policy. However, if "misused" transfers are
      not desirable in principle, it would be good to allow some capabilities
      for APNIC secretariat to refrain from approving such transfers as an
      operational decision, when it clearly finds the case of misuse.
      
      This would help the APNIC secretariat to have an APNIC document to refer
      to, and to take adequate actions when it finds such cases.
      
      3. Situation in other RIRs
      --------------------------
      
      No similar policy at other RIRs.
      
      
      4. Details
      ----------
      
      We propose to add following text in the APNIC guidelines document about
      IPv4 address transfers under the final /8 block.
      
       - For transfers of address blocks approved the final /8 policy,
         APNIC/NIR will confirm if it matches with the spirit of the final /8
         policy.
      
       - When APNIC/NIR confirm requested transfers do not match with the
         spirit of the final /8 policy, it cannot guarantee to approve such
         transfers
      
      This would allow APNIC/NIRs referring to the guidelines document, when
      they find the case of misuse.
      
      
      5. Pros/Cons
      ------------
      
      Advantages:
      
          - Allow the APNIC secretariat to take adequate actions when they
            clearly find the case of misuse against the spirit of the final
            /8 policy.
      
         -  It would not have a strong restriction as in the policy.
      
      Disadvantages:
      
          - There may be some opinions about the need to address the problem
            at this stage.
      
      6. Effect on APNIC
      ------------------
      
      Needs to justify transfers of IPv4 address blocks under the final /8
      block if it matches with the spirit of final /8 policy.
      
      
      7. Effect on NIRs
      -----------------
      
      NIRs need to adopt this policy.