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. Owen > On Sep 15, 2015, at 15:10 , Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; 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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Owen, > > > On 15/09/2015 3:36 am, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2015, at 01:59 , Masato Yamanishi <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
