[sig-policy] Monthly List Reminder

Dear Subscriber, This is the monthly reminder of subscription information for the sig-policy list, hosted at APNIC. For subscription information including how to un-subscribe go to http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Thank you for participating in this discussion. Kind

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

We brokered a sale of a 103 block when it was within policy to do so. Now that buyer, who paid money for the block with the understanding that he could resell it, has had the situation changed to his detriment by the new restrictive policy. I support the grandfathering-in of 103 blocks

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

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 ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype:

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

I agree, but there needs to be some protection for APNIC on the resources left. But I think the APNIC EC can probably decide on the best way to evaluate this themselves. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email:

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

I very much support this policy. A policy should not be retrospectively applied otherwise anything any of us may do or plan to do can be considered guaranteed, and I would see a case for requesting APNIC to return funds for any services provided that have been negated by policy changes. I also

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

I have multiple clients who are going through M of smaller ISPs and now have resources they need to use but can't combine them under their membership and have to maintain a legal company just to hold the resources. This could cost a couple of thousand dollars per year in Australia for ASIC fees,

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

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

So define it better. This could be undertaken by the EC outside the scope of policy IMHO. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: ske...@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

Agreed. I do agree that there needs to be some protections to avoid abuse of the last /8 resources, but, there seems to be a policy failure elsewhere in APNIC in relation to the evaluation of M which is allowing abusive transactions to occur. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:09 , Skeeve Stevens > wrote: > > Owen, > > Of course, there is the possibility (probability) of this, but that would be > stupid as the costs of maintaining companies would exceed CGN or other > methods to alleviate the

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy

“This is, IMHO, the kind of speculation in 103/8 blocks that the policy (original 2 year limit) was intended to target.” Not to my thinking. The thing that was targeted by policy was the tapping of the free pool in order to then turn around and sell. The problem foreseen was a recurrence

Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]

Owen, Of course, there is the possibility (probability) of this, but that would be stupid as the costs of maintaining companies would exceed CGN or other methods to alleviate the need. The issue here is that APNIC needs to be satisfied it is a real M, which should not be that hard to do.

Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10

Dear Alex Thank you for your clarification ! I understand this policy and personally support it. Satoru 2018-01-31 19:09 GMT+09:00 yang...@126.com : > Dear Satoru > >Thank you for your understanding , and for the second problem : Not > only the "One-time" thing ,but

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