> On Sep 15, 2015, at 17:58 , Paul Wilson <pwil...@apnic.net> wrote: > > Thanks Owen. > > On 16 Sep 2015, at 10:00, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I fully support the plan George described. >> >> If George states that policy is useful in pursuing that plan, I say we pass >> a policy that codifies the plan. >> >> Otherwise, I say let’s focus our efforts on IPv6 and let IPv4 disintegrate >> as it will. > > I agree with the sentiment, however let’s remember that there is demonstrated > demand for IPv4 addresses, and ongoing interest in how the address space is > managed. It is not for APNIC (Secretariat) to judge that or do anything > other than respond as we are requested to do so (both in terms of services > provided and participation in discussions as they arise). >
It certainly wasn’t my intent to state otherwise. My point is that as a member of the community, I’d like to see the community pursue effective IPv6 deployment rather than wasting energy on rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs unless we identify an area where rearrangement is critical. Since George has identified what I believe to be an excellent course of action that will be followed in the absence of policy development, I believe there is no need for policy development here. However, it may be that having policy to back up their actions is somehow useful to the staff in a way I don’t obviously see, so it may be that there is a need to codify this plan in policy that I am unaware of. As such, my intent was to request that staff make the community aware if that is the case. Otherwise, I think there is nothing to do here and we can get on with the business of deploying IPv6 and running our networks. I apologize for any misunderstanding. (Skeeve summed up what I intended to say quite well, for example). Owen > All the best! > > Paul. > > > >> >> Owen >> >>> On Sep 15, 2015, at 15:10 , Skeeve Stevens <ske...@v4now.com> wrote: >>> >>> This sounds good George. >>> >>> Do you need any support from the community to bring this into affect... in >>> the form of endorsement on this list, policy proposal (happy to do one). >>> >>> Let us know. >>> >>> >>> ...Skeeve >>> >>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker >>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks service >>> ske...@v4now.com <mailto:ske...@v4now.com> ; www.v4now.com >>> <http://www.v4now.com/> >>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve <> >>> facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ; >>> <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>> <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> >>> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: >>> www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> ; Keybase: >>> https://keybase.io/skeeve <https://keybase.io/skeeve> >>> >>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:07 AM, George Kuo <geo...@apnic.net >>> <mailto:geo...@apnic.net>> wrote: >>> Hi Owen, >>> >>> >>> On 15/09/2015 3:36 am, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 14, 2015, at 01:59 , Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:myama...@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:myama...@gmail.com <mailto:myama...@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> In Jakarta, Geoff Huston presented the status of our IPv4 resources, >>> in particular about exhaustion and transfer, >>> and some participants asked to summarize and post it to the list for >>> further discussion. >>> >>> Following is Chairs' summary of the presentation and discussion. >>> >>> 1. Status of APNIC Final /8 pool (103/8) >>> - Will run out ~4-5 years >>> >>> I think this is an appropriate time frame for runout of this pool as it >>> will be at least that long before new entrants are not in need of some >>> way to communicate with the legacy IPv4 internet. >>> >>> 2. Status of IANA Recovered pool (non-103) >>> - Will run out in next 7 months+ >>> - IANA may allocate additional space in every 6 months >>> - This pool will repeatedly ‘run-out’ as IANA delegates more space >>> and it is distributed by APNIC >>> - May need policy to deal with temporary exhaustion of the non-103 pool >>> -> Close the door when exhausted or create the waiting list and >>> put further applications to there? >>> >>> I really don’t care what we do here. What would be the default action if >>> no policy change is enacted? Can we get clarification from staff on that? >>> Absent that being a particularly bad outcome (unlikely), I say let’s not >>> focus on rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs any further. >>> >>> >>> There is no policy which addresses this issue however APNIC staff have >>> discussed this and propose the following approach: >>> >>> When requests from this pool are approved but cannot be fulfilled they will >>> be added to a waitlist. When additional resources are added to the pool, >>> they will be allocated to wait-listed requests (in order) until the pool is >>> consumed or the waitlist is cleared. We will continue in this way until >>> there is a policy which directs otherwise. >>> >>> We believe this is fairer than rejecting requests which cannot be >>> fulfilled, and then having to deal with a flood of new requests when we >>> announce availability of additional resources (in particular because the >>> timing of that announcement will strongly influence who can take advantage >>> of it). >>> >>> Feedback and discussion on this approach would be welcome of course. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> 3. Some address spaces in 103/8 were transferred within 12months since >>> initial allocation >>> - There is no policy to prohibit it while the Secretariat asks in >>> review process >>> >>> Closing the door after the horses have left the barn is likely >>> pointless. The community specifically chose to exclude this concern from >>> the transfer policy during its development (it’s not like it was not >>> discussed), so I say let’s spend this energy getting IPv6 deployed >>> rather than rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs any further. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> >>> >>> >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> >>> >>> >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC d...@apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
