Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear sunny Thank you very much for your feedback. Alex Yang From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi Date: 2018-02-19 10:19 To: yang...@126.com; sig-policy Subject: Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy Hi Alex, Here is the date you requested. > >1、How many invalid Whois contact reports received by > APNIC in 2017？ Or per month in average in 2017？ In 2017, we received a total of 3,915 reports of invalid contacts in whois database. These reports included: - Multiple reports for the same invalid whois contact - Reports for invalid contacts associated with customer assignments - Reports for unresponsive contacts (Email does not bounce but whois contact does not respond) - Network abuse activities reported incorrectly via invalid contact report form > >2、How many delegations from the 103/8 ? To date, we have made 13884 delegations from the 103/8 pool. > >3、How many m cases from 103/8 are adopted by apnic > before the prop-116, and how many be prohibited after the policy? The number of M transfers from 103/8 address block between 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257. Since the implementation of prop 116, APNIC has rejected 18 M transfer requests as they did not meet the policy criteria. > >4、How many ranges from 103/8 have the transfer > requirement but due to the prop-116, which are in the state of waiting? We don't have this number as we don’t know how many of them wish to transfer. Regards Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 19/02/2018 11:27 AM, yang...@126.com wrote: > Hello Sig policy chairs, > > >Can I ask you some questions about : > > > >1、How many invalid Whois contact reports received by > APNIC in 2017？ Or per month in average in 2017？ > >2、How many delegations from the 103/8 ? > >3、How many m cases from 103/8 are adopted by apnic > before the prop-116, and how many be prohibited after the policy? > >4、How many ranges from 103/8 have the transfer > requirement but due to the prop-116, which are in the state of waiting ? > > > yang...@126.com > > *From:* sig-policy-request <mailto:sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net> > *Date:* 2018-02-01 16:29 > *To:* sig-policy <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> > *Subject:* sig-policy Digest, Vol 165, Issue 11 > Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net > You can reach the person managing the list at > sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." > Today's Topics: > 1. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy >[SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] (Guangliang Pan) > -- > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 08:29:45 + > From: Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> > To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> > Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer > policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] > Message-ID: > > <sg2pr04mb1613c481f707cc93440108d1c6...@sg2pr04mb1613.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > Hello Owen, > There is 1.86% of the delegations from 103/8 block have been > transferred by M Out of that, only 5 ranges transferred more than > once. > There are 152 members acquired 103/8 ranges via M transfers. It is > 1% of the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of > that, 123 members received one range, 16 members received two ranges > and 13 members received more two ranges. > Kind regards, > Guangliang > == > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] > Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM > To: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia> > Cc: Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net>; mailman_SIG-policy > <sig-pol...@apnic.net> > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer > policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] > I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of > the distributed portion of 103/8. > I would be interested if staff can answer wha
Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 165, Issue 11
Hello Sig policy chairs, >Can I ask you some questions about : > >1、How many invalid Whois contact reports received by APNIC in > 2017？ Or per month in average in 2017？ >2、How many delegations from the 103/8 ? >3、How many m cases from 103/8 are adopted by apnic before the > prop-116, and how many be prohibited after the policy? >4、How many ranges from 103/8 have the transfer requirement but > due to the prop-116, which are in the state of waiting ? yang...@126.com From: sig-policy-request Date: 2018-02-01 16:29 To: sig-policy Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 165, Issue 11 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy@lists.apnic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] (Guangliang Pan) -- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 08:29:45 + From: Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net> To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] Message-ID: <sg2pr04mb1613c481f707cc93440108d1c6...@sg2pr04mb1613.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hello Owen, There is 1.86% of the delegations from 103/8 block have been transferred by M Out of that, only 5 ranges transferred more than once. There are 152 members acquired 103/8 ranges via M transfers. It is 1% of the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of that, 123 members received one range, 16 members received two ranges and 13 members received more two ranges. Kind regards, Guangliang == From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM To: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia> Cc: Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net>; mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the distributed portion of 103/8. I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 resources have been subject to one or more M transfers since issuance. I?d be especially interested in the number instances where the same entity has ?acquired? more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s). I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of: 1. Stand up shell entity 2. Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block. 3. Merge shell entity into parent entity and M transfer block into parent?s holdings. 4. Lather, rinse, repeat. Owen On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia<mailto:skeeve+sigpol...@eintellegonetworks.asia>> wrote: This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been enshrined in policy. ...Skeeve Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia<mailto:ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia> ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia<http://eintellegonetworks.asia/> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; Twitter: eintellego<https://twitter.com/eintellego> LinkedIn: /in/skeeve<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360: Profile<https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9> ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net<mailto: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<mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM To: Guangliang Pan <g...@apnic.net<mailto:g...@apnic.net>> Cc: Sanjeev Gupta <sanj...@dcs1.biz<mailto:sanj...@dcs1.biz>>; mailman_SIG-policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net<mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi
Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10
Dear Satoru Thank you for your understanding , and for the second problem : Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right !!! My suggestion is : M is ineluctable , and NO one know when it will happen from what entities , and even one company may have more than one M So my proposal is for the IPv4 Blocks allocated before prop-116 , and for the M situation, should have the equal right with others (Not only one-time) Other IPv4 blocks allocated after prop-116 or other situation should strictly obey the policy . Sorry maybe there were some mistakes for my explaination last time. Alex Yang From: Satoru Tsurumaki Date: 2018-01-31 09:49 To: yang...@126.com; sig-policy Subject: Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10 Dear Alex Thank you for your response. > In my opinion, any entity got the ipv4 blocks in 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017 > should have the same right to use or transfer its blocks like others. I also think that their rights should be respected. But, > Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right , thank you very much > !!! The recipient entities who are transferred 103/8 after 14 Sep 2017 know prop-116. I believe they have no right to transfer a 103/8 because they understand 5 years limitation and transferred it. So, I think the number of transfer of 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017 should be limited to one. Would you please give us your opinion ? BTW, About 60%+ 103/8 has already allocated. Therefore, the consensus of prop-123 means a substantial abolition of prop-116. We need re-think why prop-116 was consensus. Thanks, Satoru Tsurumaki 2018-01-29 20:09 GMT+09:00 yang...@126.com <yang...@126.com>: Dear Satoru Thank you for your question, and i mean it is really a good question! In my opinion, any entity got the ipv4 blocks in 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017 should have the same right to use or transfer its blocks like others. Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right , thank you very much !!! Alex Yang From: sig-policy-request Date: 2018-01-29 18:30 To: sig-policy Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy@lists.apnic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy (Satoru Tsurumaki) 2. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy (Ajai Kumar) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:03:38 +0900 From: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp> To: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy Message-ID: <cahxx+kqbptnrduvldtzknydhno0aqxhq4sbyxuqp8tmkq-v...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear Proposer I would like to clarify. My understanding is: Prop-116 will be subject to the 103/8 IPv4 address which allocated before 14 Sep 2017 and be transferred after this proposal will consensus. It's mean that these address will be allowed to transfer "ONE-TIME". Is it correct ? Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF Steering Team (former JPNIC Policy Working Group) 2018-01-26 12:27 GMT+09:00 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>: > 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 > AP
Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10
Dear Satoru Thank you for your question, and i mean it is really a good question! In my opinion, any entity got the ipv4 blocks in 103/8 before 14 Sep 2017 should have the same right to use or transfer its blocks like others. Not only the "One-time" thing ,but a long term right , thank you very much !!! Alex Yang From: sig-policy-request Date: 2018-01-29 18:30 To: sig-policy Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy@lists.apnic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy (Satoru Tsurumaki) 2. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy (Ajai Kumar) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:03:38 +0900 From: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp> To: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy Message-ID: <cahxx+kqbptnrduvldtzknydhno0aqxhq4sbyxuqp8tmkq-v...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear Proposer I would like to clarify. My understanding is: Prop-116 will be subject to the 103/8 IPv4 address which allocated before 14 Sep 2017 and be transferred after this proposal will consensus. It's mean that these address will be allowed to transfer "ONE-TIME". Is it correct ? Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF Steering Team (former JPNIC Policy Working Group) 2018-01-26 12:27 GMT+09:00 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>: > 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
