Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-120: Final /8 pool exhaustion plan

    • To: Adam Gosling <adam at apnic dot net>
    • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New proposal prop-120: Final /8 pool exhaustion plan
    • From: 藤崎智宏 <fujisaki at syce dot net>
    • Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 14:36:15 +0900
    • Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
    • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=syce-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=T/WgdeyxBOcdLNXR3oajtgIe82U5r3TM+Lap+rWLIio=; b=ZXVYuaL09nc2GLixdBnvzcXX005mEvVdHVMl+3O4JX7vUBdS0lv8xLBKDFBc/j6OZ5 mlm6pBxZD8NTnFPcuprnzrSsVpfqd9d5B/eOjtC+S7EL9bFzs98+jRL6PDOGvhEO3LEt ydps1/jZ3/C49/qcL2dHJEoVETawtOC2znsiNoDBx0XrfZZhOEYJdpGIiUR5iJSIH2Bu GnjRL382gsDgFza7a2eUZjONKAKLLfEc6KMaQwFo7nYesmCNTWRpyu8/glz1YvqHEGrj gvjhsqqaFl6zmREXjRbX+XXgSWvIKm8Hu3ko2q36Qu+5fuPgyeFU/3uRMKbIs95B69jN pJ9Q==
    • In-reply-to: <8E78EF12-FBC8-499A-A945-D8F5074B232C@apnic.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: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
    • List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
      • 
        Thank you for reviewing this proposal.
        
        2017-09-01 17:10 GMT+09:00 Adam Gosling <adam at apnic dot net>:
        
        > - After exhaustion, will initial resource requests from new Members be filled before unmet requests from Members already on the waiting list prior to exhaustion? Or will this priority only apply to requests submitted after the exhaustion date?
        
        Good point, I think it will be better to apply this prioritization  to
        requests of members
        submitted after the exhaustion date. The waiting list before the exhaustion date
        should leave it as is, and add new prioritized requests bottom of the list.
        
        Yours Sincerely,
        ---
        Tomohiro Fujisaki
        
        
        2017-09-01 17:10 GMT+09:00 Adam Gosling <adam at apnic dot net>:
        > Dear Tomohiro,
        >
        > APNIC Secretariat is reviewing the policy proposals under discussion and seeks clarification to better understand the intention of prop-120-v001: Final /8 pool exhaustion plan.
        >
        > APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and only requires clarification to ensure correct implementation should the proposal reach consensus.
        >
        > - After exhaustion, will initial resource requests from new Members be filled before unmet requests from Members already on the waiting list prior to exhaustion? Or will this priority only apply to requests submitted after the exhaustion date?
        >
        > We appreciate your clarification.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Adam
        >
        > _______________________________________________________
        > Adam Gosling
        > Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC
        > e: adam at apnic dot net
        > p: +61 7 3858 3142
        > m: +61 421 456 243
        > www.apnic.net
        > _______________________________________________________
        >
        > Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/
        > _______________________________________________________
        >
        >
        >
        > On 9/8/17, 16:17, "sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net on behalf of chku" <sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net on behalf of chku at twnic dot net dot tw> wrote:
        >
        >     Dear SIG members
        >
        >     The proposal "prop-120: Final /8 pool exhaustion plan" has been sent
        >     to the Policy SIG for review.
        >
        >     It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will
        >     be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September
        >     2017.
        >
        >     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?
        >       - 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 at:
        >
        >         http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-120
        >
        >     Regards
        >
        >     Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
        >     APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
        >
        >
        >     -------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >     prop-120-v001: Final /8 pool exhaustion plan
        >
        >     -------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >     Proposer:       Tomohiro Fujisaki
        >                     fujisaki at syce dot net
        >
        >
        >     1. Problem statement
        >     --------------------
        >
        >     APNIC makes IPv4 address delegation from two IPv4 pools. These are the
        >     103/8 (Final /8) pool and the non-103/8 IPv4 Recovered pool.
        >
        >     Currently, there are no IPv4 addresses in the non-103/8 IPv4 Recovered
        >     pool and APNIC manages a Recovered Pool Waiting List for approved
        >     requests. And, based on the Geoff's projection (*1), the 103/8 (Final
        >     /8) pool will be exhausted in a few years.
        >
        >     It will be necessary to make a guidance about how to manage the IPv4
        >     delegation after both IPv4 pools exhaustion.
        >
        >
        >     2. Objective of policy change
        >     -----------------------------
        >
        >     To provide a guidance for 103/8 pool exhaustion.
        >
        >
        >     3. Situation in other regions
        >     -----------------------------
        >
        >     None.
        >
        >
        >     4. Proposed policy solution
        >     ---------------------------
        >
        >     Guidance for 103/8 pool exhaustion:
        >
        >       - The first time an approved request cannot be fulfilled from the 103/8
        >         pool, Final /8 delegations will end.
        >
        >       - APNIC will begin to manage only one (Recovered) IPv4 pool containing
        >         any residual 103/8 space and all future returns, including 103/8 returns.
        >
        >       - Each new account holder can receive up to a /21 from the IPv4
        >         Recovered pool.
        >
        >       - Existing account holders who have not yet received the maximum /21
        >         from the two pools may continue to apply for space from the Recovered
        >         pool until they have received a maximum /21 from the two pools.
        >
        >       - A waiting list will be created if approved requests cannot be
        >         fulfilled. Each new account holder will be given priority in the
        >         waiting list.
        >
        >
        >     5. Advantages / Disadvantages
        >     -----------------------------
        >
        >     Advantages:
        >
        >       - Possible to avoid confusion at 103/8 address pool exhaustion date
        >
        >     Disadvantages:
        >
        >     None.
        >
        >
        >     6. Impact on resource holders
        >     ------------------------------
        >
        >     No impact to resource holders.
        >
        >
        >     7. References
        >     -------------
        >     1. IPv4 Address Report
        >       http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >     _______________________________________________
        >     Sig-policy-chair mailing list
        >     Sig-policy-chair at apnic dot net
        >     https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
        >
        >
        > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
        > _______________________________________________
        > sig-policy mailing list
        > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
        > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy