Dear Jahangir, So, do you support prop-116-v002 as written or oppose?
Regards, Matt 2016-10-02 16:12 GMT+09:00 Jahangir Hossain <jahan...@parween.net>: > Dear all , > > I'm latecomer of the race to get IPv4 . So as a latecomer of the > community, may i have a last option or opportunity to get resources ? > > According to transfer statistics and member of this community, we are > responsible for maintaining the number resources policy and update when > needed for the community . > > > *Regards / Jahangir * > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Hiroki Kawabata <kawab...@nic.ad.jp> > wrote: > >> If the current situation of 103/8 distribution is different from the >> intention >> and concept of prop-062(*) as described in the proposal, I think we need >> to discuss it >> and revise the policy as necessary. >> >> (*)103/8 block is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address block >> for new comers. >> >> prop-062: Use of final /8 >> https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062 >> >> I think our community is responsible for maintaining the number resources >> policy. >> Regardless of IPv4 or IPv6, it is not appropriate to leave the policy >> untouched, >> and not to maintain what we have developed. >> >> Regards, >> Hiroki >> >> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-116: Prohibit to transfer >> IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block (SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED) >> From: Mark Foster <blak...@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue Sep 27 2016 09:14:57 GMT+0900 >> >> I agree that there's an element of 'deck chair rearrangement' but it's a >>> reality that there is a commercial market for IPv4 and competitive value in >>> having addresses available. To simply say 'who cares about IPv4, move on' >>> will simply encourage predatory practices. >>> >>> I have no doubt that the M&A process will be used to abuse the process, >>> and believe there needs to be a deterrent to the abuse of the bureaucratic >>> process. >>> But legitimate M&A needs to be permitted (having had to engage this >>> process in the last couple of years due to organisational and commercial >>> changes at my then-employer, I wouldn't want to see that process made any >>> more complex than necessary). >>> >>> I think that the modified proposal has merit for that reason, and would >>> support it. >>> >>> Mark. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Alastair Johnson <a...@sneep.net <mailto: >>> a...@sneep.net>> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Mike. I don't support this proposal. >>> >>> AJ >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2016, at 2:26 PM, HENDERSON MIKE, MR < >>> michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz <mailto:michael.hender...@nzdf.mil.nz>> >>> 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:*sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net <mailto: >>>> sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis >>>> ts.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net>] *On Behalf >>>> Of *Masato Yamanishi >>>> *Sent:* Monday, 26 September 2016 11:06 p.m. >>>> *To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >>>> > >>>> *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 < >>>> 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 >>>> fujis...@syce.net <mailto:fujis...@syce.net> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 < >>>> 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 < >>>> 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 >>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >>>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy < >>>> https://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> >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy < >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> > > > > -- > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
