Hi David,
I support this policy.Is it possible to suggest myAPNIC account for vote in the
next meeting ?
Best Regards,
Ernest TsePacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.// Web: http://www.pacswitch.com// Tel:
+852-21570550//Mobile: +852-62536678//Skype: codesixs
On Wed, 01/03/2017 16.25, David Hilario <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> The policy proposal was referred to the next APNIC meeting due to lack of
> support from the community, the show of hands in support and opposition in
> the room was in the low count.
> I would like to ask any remote participant on the list interested about this
> proposal who have not yet to come forward to please do so and show your
> support or opposition.
>
> Confer software was showing a large disproportionate support compared to the
> support in the room.
> During the session it was mention that people were "gaming the conf
> software", which is not acceptable.
> I therefore ask for 2 things from APNIC secretariat
> 1.APNIC secretariat please release any supporting information about the
> suspicion of system gaming, this is a very severe accusation against the
> APNIC community at large, denouncing whoever was behind that should be done.
> 2.Did other proposal get affected in the same manner?
>
>
> David Hilario
IP Manager
Larus Cloud Service Limited
p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784
> f: +852 29888068
> a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing
Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
> w: laruscloudservice.net/uk
> e: [email protected]
> On 1 March 2017 at 06:05, David Hilario <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> Hi Hiroki,
> The recipient receiving the address space will be under the APNIC policies in
> place, which mean they should be using the address space to number their
> network or their customers network.
> So the received space is for them to use for their own network or customers.
>
>
> David Hilario
IP Manager
Larus Cloud Service Limited
p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784
> f: +852 29888068
> a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing
Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
> w: laruscloudservice.net/uk
> e: [email protected]
>
> On 1 March 2017 at 04:27, Hiroki Kawabata <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dear David,
>
>
We support this proposal in general but we'd like to confirm about your
proposal.
>
>
Under the current transfer policy, we understand transferred address space are
to be used
>
by the recipient of the transfer, and not for re-sale purpose without use by
the recipient.
>
>
Please let me confirm that this remains unchanged under this policy proposal,
>
i.e., the transfer policy is *not* for re-sale.
>
>
Regards,
>
Hiroki
>
>
---
>
Hiroki Kawabata([email protected])
>
Hostmaster, IP Address Department
>
Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
>
>
>
Subject: [sig-policy] prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>
From: Sumon Ahmed Sabir <[email protected]>
>
Date: Tue Jan 31 2017 19:44:58 GMT+0900
>
>
>
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
>
>
Regards
>
>
Masato, Sumon
>
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Proposer: David Hilario
>
[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
>
>
>
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
* 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
