I understand Mike's point but it is not appropriate for the reason to support
or not this proposal.
Less the stock of IPv4 address becomes, we have to think about its policy more
seriously for fair.
I'll be absent from the next meeting but I'd like to support this proposal.
On 2016/09/27 04:50, Alastair Johnson wrote:
I agree with Mike. I don't support this proposal.
AJ
On Sep 26, 2016, at 2:26 PM, HENDERSON MIKE, MR <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The objectives of this proposal are laudable, but in my view policy development
for IPv4 is just ‘rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic’: a waste of time
and effort.
I do *not* support this proposal
Regards
*/Mike/*
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Masato Yamanishi
*Sent:* Monday, 26 September 2016 11:06 p.m.
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4
addresses in the final /8 block
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.
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?
- 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,
Masato, Sumon
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-116-v002: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Tomohiro Fujisaki
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
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 hight
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.
Provided by George Kuo on the sig-policy ML at 8th September 2016:
1) M&A 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 | 45 | 177 |
+------+-----------+------------+-
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 |
| 2016 | 56 | 206 |
+------+-----------+-----------+
And also, transfers from the 103/8 block include:
- Take place within 1 year of distribution, or
- Multiple blocks to a single organization in case of beyond 1 year.
Further, there is a case where a single organization have received 12
blocks transfers from 103 range.
see: https://www.apnic.net/transfer-resources/transfer-logs
From these figures, it is quite likely that substantial number of 103/8
blocks are being used for transfer purpose.
This conflicts with the concept of distribution of 103/8 block
(prop-062), which is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address blocks
for new comers.
prop-062: Use of final /8
https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
When stated problem is solved, distribution from 103/8 block will be
consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new entrants
to the industry. Without the policy change, substantial portion of 103/8
blocks will be consumed for transfer purpose.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
RIPE-NCC has been discussing to prohibit transfer under the final /8
address block.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
Prohibit transfer IPv4 address under /8 address block (103/8).
If the address block allocated to a LIR is not needed any more, it have
to return to APNIC to allocate to another organization.
In the case of transfers due to M&A, merged organization can have
up to /22 IPv4 address in the 103/8 block. The 103/8 IPv4 address
more than /22 have to return to APNIC to allocate to another
organization.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
- It makes 103/8 blocks available according to the original purpose,
as distribution for new entrants (rather than being consumed for
transfer purpose)
- IPv4 addresses under final /8 are not transferred to outside APNIC.
- By prohibiting transfer them, it is possible to keep one /22 for
each LIRs state, which is fair for all LIRs.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
------------------------------
- LIRs cannot transfer address blocks under 103/8. No big impact while
they use it.
- Organizations which needs to receive transferred IPv4 can continue
to do so, outside 103/8 blocks (which should be made available for
new entrants)
7. References
-------------
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the
official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not
the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this
message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
Yuya KAWAKAMI
JPNAP Network/Software Engineer
Internet Multifeed Co.
+81-3-6262-0960
[email protected]
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
