Hi Masato and all , Two reasons to support this prop-116-v002 from my side .
1. Consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new entrants to the industry (which proposer already informed). 2. Increase the growth of IPv6 deployment ( Proposer can consideration this as an advantage ) . *Regards / Jahangir * On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jahangir Hossain <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
