Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to trans

    • To: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurumaki at g.softbank dot co dot jp>
    • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
    • From: Ajai Kumar <joinajay1 at gmail dot com>
    • Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 12:33:47 +0800
    • Cc: 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=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3QuB04ZJz3akwNphKMxDbY5dIdc3kZrBElBEP6okH24=; b=JRw/1QoIF43QJvohQijldFGagrGPls5SSAZR2kShQZsezlZXb19Hj5egsHefx4S4my aqiKk7FlXRYJ5l/0KK2esCvBR8zIu3/LxpJqI2dj0DyrJ4CuvfoMTQSRd/mNGlVqr79B 1J9NOzor5IJ0OxZeknQxbtajYRZsLhZokZcFJujbEUe4j4//qQBEgR2/hhlqkg4JujLP vd9mx07nmpoViahmnm9TiQ2S674RknT+YwxPXrjUVOiNPSxbaBqUXXM1IJ8u1AEuIKbX 9Cheif2ZVPsQqu6BkF1JGeprJ+QSloSvyrYSpoU16ux3nlHRhyAufsoQB6y8N+e/GOud 8EQw==
    • In-reply-to: <CAHXx+kS_MaNDGAxwCTFL-vfFVh0CtficTTUXUdNaPwCLBPysog 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: <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>
      • Dear Policy chair,
        I personally partial support if M& A case be excluded as no one knows when M&A case can come into picture looking at the business of company.
        Regards,
        Ajai Kumar


        On 8 September 2017 at 14:31, Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurumaki at g.softbank dot co dot jp> wrote:
        Dear Colleagues,


        I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.

        I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-116,
        based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.


        Substantial support expressed for the proposal with reasons below.

        * Transfer of 103/8 block is against the original intention of the
        final /8 policy (103/8).

        * Given the purpose of 103/8 block distribution is to make the minimum
        IPv4 address block available until transition to IPv6, it may even be
        unnecessary to set the limit of "two years" to prohibit the transfer.


        Best Regards,

        Satoru Tsurumaki
        Policy Working Group
        Japan Open Policy Forum


        2017-08-09 15:12 GMT+09:00 chku <chku at twnic dot net dot tw>:
        > Dear SIG members
        >
        > A new version of the proposal "prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4
        > addresses in the final /8 block" 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.
        >
        > Information about earlier versions is available from:
        >
        >     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-116
        >
        > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
        >
        >  - Do you support or oppose the 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?
        >
        > Please find the text of the proposal below.
        >
        > Kind Regards,
        >
        > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
        > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
        >
        >
        >
        > -------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > prop-116-v004: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
        >
        > -------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > Proposer:       Tomohiro Fujisaki
        >                 fujisaki at syce dot net
        >
        >
        > 1. Problem statement
        > --------------------
        >
        > There are a lot of transfers of IPv4 address blocks from 103/8
        > happening, both within the APNIC region and among RIRs.
        >
        > Then number of transfer from 103/8 block are about 200, which is about
        > 12% of the total number of transfers. This looks so high since APNIC
        > manages about 40/8.
        >
        > And based on the information provided by APNIC Secretariat, number of
        > transfers from the 103/8 block are increasing year by year.
        >
        > Updated by APNIC Secretariat on 27 January 2017:
        >
        > 1) M&A transfers containing 103/8 space
        >
        > +------+-----------+-----------+-
        > |      |   Total   | Number of |
        > | Year | Transfers |   /24s    |
        > +------+-----------+-----------+-
        > | 2011 |         3 |         12 |
        > | 2012 |        10 |         46 |
        > | 2013 |        18 |         66 |
        > | 2014 |       126 |        498 |
        > | 2015 |       147 |        573 |
        > | 2016 |        63 |        239 |
        > | 2017 |        45 |        178 |
        > +------+-----------+------------+-
        >
        > 2) Market transfers containing 103/8 space
        >
        > +------+-----------+-----------+
        > |      |   Total   | Number of |
        > | Year | Transfers |   /24s    |
        > +------+-----------+-----------+
        > | 2011 |         2 |         2 |
        > | 2012 |        21 |        68 |
        > | 2013 |        16 |        61 |
        > | 2014 |        25 |        95 |
        > | 2015 |        67 |       266 |
        > | 2016 |       103 |       394 |
        > | 2017 |        70 |       288 |
        > +------+-----------+-----------+
        >
        > And also, transfers from the 103/8 block include:
        >   - Take place within 1 year of distribution, or
        >   - Multiple blocks to a single organization in case of beyond 1 year.
        >
        > Further, there is a case where a single organization have received 12
        > blocks transfers from 103 range.
        >
        > see:  https://www.apnic.net/transfer-resources/transfer-logs
        >
        > From these figures, it is quite likely that substantial number of 103/8
        > blocks are being used for transfer purpose.
        >
        > This conflicts with the concept of distribution of 103/8 block
        > (prop-062), which is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address blocks
        > for new comers.
        >
        > prop-062: Use of final /8
        >   https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062
        >
        >
        > 2. Objective of policy change
        > -----------------------------
        >
        > When stated problem is solved, distribution from 103/8 block will be
        > consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new entrants
        > to the industry. Without the policy change, substantial portion of 103/8
        > blocks will be consumed for transfer purpose.
        >
        >
        > 3. Situation in other regions
        > -----------------------------
        >
        > None.
        >
        >
        > 4. Proposed policy solution
        > ---------------------------
        >
        > Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under /8 address block (103/8) which
        > have not passed two years after its allocation/assignment. If the
        > address block allocated to a LIR in two years is not needed any more, it
        > must return to APNIC to allocate to another organization using final /8
        > policy. This two years requirement will apply both market and M&A
        > transfers.
        >
        > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
        > -----------------------------
        >
        > Advantages:
        >   - It makes 103/8 blocks available according to the original purpose,
        >     as distribution for new entrants (rather than being consumed for
        >     transfer purpose)
        >
        >   - IPv4 addresses under final /8 are not transferred to outside APNIC.
        >
        >   - By prohibiting transfer, them, it is possible to keep one /22 for
        >     each LIRs state, which is fair for all LIRs.
        >
        > Disadvantages:
        > None.
        >
        >
        > 6. Impact on resource holders
        > ------------------------------
        >
        >   - LIRs cannot transfer address blocks under 103/8. No big impact while
        >     they use it.
        >
        >   - Organizations which needs to receive transferred IPv4 can continue
        >     to do so, outside 103/8 blocks (which should be made available for
        >     new entrants)
        >
        >
        > 7. References
        > -------------
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > _______________________________________________
        > 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
        *              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



        --

        (M) +91-9868477444
        Skype ID:erajay
        P-mail: joinajay1 at gmail.com
        .................................
        Please don't print this email unless you really need to. This will preserve trees on our planet.