Hi Masato , I support this prop-116-v002
*Regards / Jahangir *On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Masato Yamanishi < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]>: > >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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:sig-policy-bounces@lis >>>>> ts.apnic.net <mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf >>>>> Of *Masato Yamanishi >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, 26 September 2016 11:06 p.m. >>>>> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >>>>> .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 >>>>> [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 < >>>>> 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 >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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 >>>> [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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> [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
