[sig-policy] Re: Prop-152-v001: Reduce the IPv4 delegation from /23 to /24
Hi Team, As per my opinion, to stop the menace of hoarding of resources and depriving it to the real user, that as new allocation is restricted to/23 , same way transfer from resources holder should also be restricted to /23 in a year This may put some check on hoarding or sort of black marketing. Need to frame policy for the same. Any constructive feedback is welcome. Regards, Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt Ltd +91-9227886001 +91-9426110781 On Thu, 24 Aug, 2023, 13:28 Delong.com via SIG-policy, < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote: > > > > On Aug 22, 2023, at 05:16, Ashish Agarwal > wrote: > > > > > > > > One basic question, are auctions/ IPV4 brokers like these permitted > by IANA / APNIC ? If so it makes > > the implementation of any restriction very difficult. > > > > thanks > > Your question sounds simple enough, but it’s very complex. > > What possible recourse would APNIC have to restrict an auction of > addresses by a US company on behalf of a provider registered in RIPE NCC? > > I suppose APNIC could, theoretically block the inbound transfer (assuming > that the winning bidder chooses to transfer the addresses into APNIC), but > since the transfer (presumably) meets all of the outbound eligibility > criteria for RIPE NCC (I’m sure there are some, but I’m equally sure RIPE > NCC makes them pretty minimal), but that would violate the APNIC policy as > currently written. Changing the APNIC policy to block this would probably > make it incompatible with the ARIN policy and open a different can of worms. > > So, exactly what restrictions do you want that don’t currently exist and > why do you think they would be beneficial? > > Owen > > ___ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net ___ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v003: Historical Resources Management
Hello Sunny and Team, Is there any routing table analysis available, which shows how many of these historical pools are really in use ( announced) ? This can help for better decision making while framing policy. Regards, Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 +91-9426110781 On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:30 AM Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote: > Hi Guarav and all, > > Sorry for the delay. These are the current total number of historical IPv4 > addresses in each economy under APNIC management. > > > Economy > > Historical IPv4 (number of /24s) > > JP > > 155026 > > au > > 64043 > > tw > > 14878 > > kr > > 12471 > > nz > > 7408 > > hk > > 3953 > > sg > > 2957 > > th > > 2934 > > cn > > 1861 > > in > > 1149 > > id > > 817 > > bn > > 514 > > my > > 512 > > mo > > 265 > > fj > > 264 > > ph > > 172 > > lk > > 128 > > pg > > 18 > > pk > > 17 > > mu > > 8 > > bd > > 6 > > np > > 6 > > nf > > 5 > > nc > > 4 > > sb > > 2 > > gu > > 1 > > pf > > 1 > > us > > 1 > > Regards, > Sunny > > > On 20/01/2023 2:02 pm, Gaurav Kansal wrote: > > I would request APNIC Secretariat to publish country wise number of > historical account holder and number of IP owned by each account holder. > For the sake of privacy, account holder name may not be published. > > Regards, > Gaurav Kansal > > > On 20-Jan-2023, at 08:22, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote: > > Hi Aftab, > > 12 months after they are marked as reserved. It is the same period, either > they are claimed, or they will be placed in the free-pool. > > To make it clear, may be instead of “After 12 months”, “After the 12 > months period”? > > Tks for the inputs! > > Regards, > > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > El 19/1/23, 21:40, "Aftab Siddiqui" escribió: > > Hi Jordi, > > > > 4.3. Historical Resources Management > > a) Historical resources currently marked as reserved. > The custodians can claim historical resources that have been marked as > reserved within 12 months of the date they were marked as reserved. > After 12 months, these resources will be placed in the free pool for > re-delegation. > > > When will this 12 months period start? > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > ___ sig-policy - > https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send > an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net > > ** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > <https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F=05%7C01%7C%7Cdae5c80c9a434981bec908dafa9b3424%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C638097842498339956%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C=Yfho8CqTIOzZCS7kz5SlxashyUoi4UlMJ%2B6wwe9JS%2Bg%3D=0> > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this > communication and delete it. > > ___ > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net > > > > > <https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Famritmahotsav.nic.in%2F=05%7C01%7C%7Cdae5c80c9a434981bec908dafa9b3424%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C638097842498339956%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C=B3YPSmIw7GoRgFCvfe5gg2i8NmlWpme%2BctAgi5mgknY%3D=0> > <https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.g20.org%2F=05%7C01%7C%7Cdae5c80c9a434981bec908dafa9b3424%7C127d8d0d7ccf473d
[sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
Dear Team, As Mr. Satoru, mentioned there are changes, but if carefully implemented in phased manner, unauthorised leasing can be stopped. For example in first phase, leasing among countries can be stopped, if the owner company doesn't provide any services beyond its home country. For example if a company in India doesn't have any operation in Singapore or Japan , can't lease resources to those companies in Singapore or Japan. This can be verified by taking business registration documents of both lease and lessor. Once this is done same may be granularized at RIR level, where in country like India, leasing can be restricted to the licensed service area for service provider within their designated service area. This may stop majority of issues, barring few exceptions. Some more brainstorming is required for better understanding and precise implementation. Regards, Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt Ltd +91-9227886001 +91-9426110781 On Fri, Sep 2, 2022, 10:44 AM Tsurumaki, Satoru wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.. > > I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-148, > based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals. > > Many participants support the intent of the proposal but felt that > implementation would be challenging. > > (comment details) > - It is undisputed that the current policy allows for the distribution > of IP addresses according to the actual demand of one's own > organization or directly connected customers, and does not allow for > the leasing of IP addresses. > - I think this proposal would be useful if the concept of leasing is > accurately defined. > - Leasing IP addresses that damage the accuracy of whois information > should not be allowed, but I find it difficult to implement. > > > Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team > > 2022年8月26日(金) 17:27 Shaila Sharmin : > > > > Dear SIG members, > > > > A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v002: Clarification - Leasing of > > Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > > > Information about earlier versions is available from: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148 > > > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > > > - Do you support or oppose the 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. > > > > Regards, > > Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > -- > > prop-148-v002: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable > > -- > > > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) > >Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in) > >Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com) > > > > > > 1. Problem statement > > > > RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources > > according to need, in such a way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able > > to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are > > not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business. > > > > When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever > > reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the > > RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the > > delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that > > no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be > > false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to > > renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using > > the appropriate transfer policy. > > > > If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original > > spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link > > between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security > > problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who > > has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate > > physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the > > entire community. > > > > Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet > > Resources should not be
Re: [sig-policy] prop-141-v002: Change maximum delegation, size of IPv4 address from 512 ( /23 ) to 768 (/23+/24) addresses
Dear Team, This policy need to be available for all members who has less than or equal to /23 allocation , irrespective of their joining APNIC or NIR. regards, Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 +91-9426110781 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 3:32 AM Bertrand Cherrier wrote: > Dear SIG members, > > A new version of the proposal "prop-141-v002: Change maximum delegation > size of IPv4 address from 512 ( /23 ) to 768 (/23+/24) addresses" has > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52 > on Thursday, 16 September 2021. > > https://conference.apnic.net/52/program/schedule/#/day/4 > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing > list before the OPM. > > The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important > part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 earlier versions is available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-141 > > Regards, > Bertrand and Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > -- > > > > prop-141-v002: Change maximum delegation size of IPv4 address from 512 ( > /23 ) to 768 (/23+/24) addresses. > > --- > > > > Proposer: Simon Sohel Baroi (sba...@gmail.com) >Aftab Siddiqui (aftab.siddi...@gmail.com) > > > 1. Problem statement > > According to the APNIC IPv4 Address > Report,(https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/ipv4-exhaustion/ ) the available > and reserve pool size is as follows: > > Available Pool : IP Address 3,782,144 | 14,774 Of /24 > Reserved Pool : IP Address 1,831,680 | 7,155 Of /24 > > If APNIC continues to delegate IPv4 in size of /23 with the average > growth rate of 145 x /23 delegations per > month the pool will be exhausted around Aug/Sep 2027. Which means the > huge number of IPv4 addresses will be > unused for a long time and large community members will still remain > behind the NAT box or without Internet > Connectivity. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > - > The current final /8 allocation policy [1] advise that the current > minimum delegation size for IPv4 is 256 (/24) > addresses and each APNIC account holder is only eligible to receive IPv4 > address delegations totaling a maximum > 512 (/23) addresses from the APNIC 103/8 IPv4 address pool. (6.1. > Minimum and maximum IPv4 delegations) > > This is a proposal to change the maximum size of IPv4 address > delegations from the available IPv4 address pool to > a totaling of 768 (/23+/24) addresses. This proposal also indicates how > APNIC will distribute the IPv4 resources > systematically when the available pool size reduces. > > Increasing the maximum IPv4 delegation size from /23 to /23+/24 IPv4 > address pool will allow Newcomers and also > Existing APNIC account holders who only received /23 after Thursday, 28 > February 2019 to receive 256 (/24) IPv4 > addresses. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > - > There is no similar policy in place in other RIR regions. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --- > It is recommended to increase the IPv4 address delegation size from 512 > max (/23) to 768 (/23 + /24). The address > space can now be allocated from the available 103/8 last /8 block and/or > from non 103/8 recovered address blocks. > This policy will continue until the available + reserved comes down to > less than 900,000 IPv4 addresses i.e. > < 3515x/24, once reaching this threshold the maximum delegation size > will revert back to 512 IPv4 addresses (/23) > and will continue to do so until the available + reserved block comes > down to 256,000 IPv4 addresses i.e 1000x/24 > then the delegation size will further reduce to 256 IPv4 addresses i.e. > /24. The very first time the reserved and > available pool goes below 190,000 IPv4 addresses then the IPv4 reserved > pool (APNIC-127 Section 5.1.1) for Future > Use of /16 (i.e. 256 x /24s) will be added to the available pool. > >
Re: [sig-policy] prop-130-v003: Modification of transfer policies
Dear Members, I support the views of Chku. In case of M cases policy should be simple enough and APNIC need to act as a facilitator. Regards, Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt Ltd On Tue, Feb 2, 2021, 9:55 AM chku wrote: > Dear SIG members, > > A new version of the proposal "prop-130: Modification of transfer policies" > has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APRICOT2021/APNIC 51 > online-only conference on Wednesday, 03 February 2021. > > 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 conference 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 at: > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-130 > > Regards, > Bertrand and Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > --- > > prop-130-v003: Modification of transfer policies > > --- > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martnez > jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com > > > 1. Problem statement > > > Existing transfer policies for IPv4, IPv6 and ASN resources have some > differences among what is allowed and what not, if in the case of > intra-RIR and inter-RIR, and it is not clear if in case of merger and > acquisitions it is referring to a complete company, part of it, or even > if in case of a company reorganization or relocation, the policy is > supportive to that case. > > In some regions, this may not be a policy, but an administrative > procedure, but this may change in the future by means of a policy proposal. > > In the caser of inter-RIR, the counterpart RIR need to have a reciprocal > policy or procedure that allows it. > > Finally, there should not be differences from the APNIC perspective, on > the considerations of an M for different type of resources, because > there is no reason for allowing, for example, IPv4 resources to be > transferred, and instead IPv6 ones not. For example, an organization may > be hosting services in a Data Center, by means of Virtual Machines and > moving to a different DC in another region. It is ridiculous to allow to > keep the IPv4 addresses (so not renumber the VMs) and instead ask to > renumber IPv6. It is a big and unnecessary disruptive complexity. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > -- > To ensure that the policy text is clarified, if those cases are > supported by the community. > > It will also facilitate companies or business units, moving or being > established in other regions. > > It will minimize legal issues in case an acquisition claiming their > rights over the acquired company and their existing assets (resources). > > > 3. Situation in other regions > -- > There is a variety of support of all those cases in different regions. > The one more open is RIPE, followed by ARIN and LACNIC. A similar policy > proposal is being discussed in AFRINIC. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > Actual Text > 8.4. Mergers & acquisitions > APNIC will process and record the transfer of IPv4 resources as the > result of merger or acquisition. > > 11.0. Transfer of IPv6 resources > APNIC will only recognize the transfer or IPv6 addresses as the result > of Merger & Acquisition activity. The following conditions and > consequences apply. > > 13.3. Mergers & acquisitions > APNIC will recognize the transfer of ASNs as the result of merger or > acquisition. > > > Proposed Text > 8.4. Mergers, acquisitions and relocations > APNIC will recognize the transfer of IPv4 resources resulting from a > partial or complete merger, acquisition, reorganization or relocation. > > In the case of inter-RIR, the counterpart RIR need to have a reciprocal > policy/procedure that allows it. > > > 11.0. Transfer of IPv6 resources > APNIC will recognize the transfer or IPv6 resources resulting from a > partial or complete merger, acquisition, reorganization or relocation. > > In the case of inter-RIR, the counterpart RIR need to have a rec
Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Team, As statistics suggest, M cases are hardly 2 to 3% of the total delegations. M are the routine business activities, and no one can predict when will it happen . I support the policy. Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:38 PM, andrew khoo <andrew.k...@as136019.net> wrote: > we will vote to support this policy. > > as a practical example, the organisation i work for will be affected by > this policy. > > the organisation (a mobile MVNO) acquired a business in 2016 with a /22 > from the 103/8 range with the intention of offering fixed line services. > > we are seeking to merge the purchased entity's /22 into our APNIC account. > > if we do not do this, the details in APNIC whois for the purchased entity > will soon be no longer valid. > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote: > >> Hi Aftab, >> >> >> >> The number of M transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April >> 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Guangliang >> >> == >> >> >> >> *From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM >> *To:* Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> >> *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz>; mailman_SIG-policy < >> sig-pol...@apnic.net> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer >> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] >> >> >> >> Hi Guangliang, >> >> How many M were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to >> 14 Sep 2017. >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Sanjeev, >> >> >> >> The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years >> count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations >> are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Guangliang >> >> = >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis >> ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta >> *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM >> *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr <michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> >> *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> >> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer >> policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who >> "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different >> now. >> >> >> >> I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was >> sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the >> rules were changing. >> >> >> >> APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123? >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sanjeev Gupta >> +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr < >> michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote: >> >> Not supported >> >> >> >> The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read: >> >> ___ >> >> Disadvantages: >> >> >> >> None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer >> IPv4 addresses in >> >> the final /8 block. >> >> ___ >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> >> >> *Mike* >> >> >> >> *From:* sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis >> ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier >> *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. >> *To:* sig-pol...@apnic.net >> *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy >> >> >> >> Dear SIG members, >> >> The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has >> been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in >> Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018. >&g
Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
I partially support the policy. For genuine M cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take place. regards, Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc > wrote: > Dear SIG members, > > The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in > Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018. > > 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 at: > >http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123 > > Regards > > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt > > --- > > prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy > > --- > > Proposer:Alex Yang > yang...@126.com > > > 1. Problem statement > --- > > Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in > the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep > 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8 > block if the delegation date is less than 5 years. > > However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. > Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The > community was not aware of the restriction when they received those > resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to > transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, > there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC > Whois data. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > --- > > To keep the APNIC Whois data correct. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > --- > > No such situation in other regions. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --- > > “Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) > which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment” > should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 > Sep 2017. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > --- > > Advantages: > > - Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC > Whois data correct. > > > Disadvantages: > > None. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > --- > > Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources > were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. > > > > 7. References > --- > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >* > ___ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27--support prop-116-v005 that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years
Dear Team Policy in sync with other RIR, is more reasonable. I also think 2 years is appropriate. Rajesh Panwala On 13-Oct-2017 11:35 AM, "steven.166" <steven@tom.com> wrote: > *Dear all,* > > As we know,RIPE NCC and ARIN have the similar 2 years limit for transfer. > > We think 2 years limit is more reasonable. > It will make the policy more compatible with other RIRs. > > > Best Regards, > > Steven > > 随心邮-在微信里收发邮件，及时省电又安心 <http://mail.tom.com/webmail-static/welcomesxy.html> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >* > ___ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
Dear Team, I also support Mr. Ajay. For M one can't predict. Policy should accomodate M cases. Rajesh Panwala On 12-Sep-2017 10:04 AM, "Ajai Kumar" <joinaj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Policy chair, > I personally partial support if M& A case be excluded as no one knows when > M case can come into picture looking at the business of company. > Regards, > Ajai Kumar > > > On 8 September 2017 at 14:31, Satoru Tsurumaki < > satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.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 <c...@twnic.net.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 >> > fujis...@syce.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 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
