Hi Sumon, Provided that prop-116 passes, I will support this proposal
See you next week <https://www.mls.nc/> Bertrand Cherrier, Administrateur Systèmes [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> www.mls.nc <https://www.mls.nc/> @micrologicnc <http://twitter.com/micrologicnc> Sur facebook <https://www.facebook.com/mls.nc> Téléphone: 24 99 24 VoIP: 65 24 99 24 Service Clientèle: 36 67 76 (58F/min) > Le 31 janv. 2017 à 17:44, Sumon Ahmed Sabir <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region" has been > sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 43 in Ho Chi > Minh City, Viet Nam on Wednesday, 1 March 2017. > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list > before the meeting. > > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an > important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to > express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, > tell the community about your situation. > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more > effective? > > Information about this proposal is available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 > <http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118> > > Regards > > Masato, Sumon > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: David Hilario > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > 1. Problem statement > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the > recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend > to transfer. > > Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to > enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming > from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect > the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. > Ease some administration on APNIC staff. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ------------------------------------------------------- > > RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first > allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their > intended use of the resources . > > ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN. > > AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource > request from AFRINIC based on needs. > > LACNIC, no transfers, need based request. > > Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer > policies, ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy > from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE > region. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility: > > - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its > service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating > to transfers within its service region. > > - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to > have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the > APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within > 5 years. > > source: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 > <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644> > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Advantages: > > - Harmonisation with RIPE region. > - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC > and RIPE. > - maintains a compatibility with ARIN. > - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on > potentially badly documented needs. > - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff. > > Disadvantages: > > none. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ------------------------------------------------------- > None > > > 7. References > ------------------------------------------------------- > * 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
