​Dear All,


Here is my opinion,




(1) If the transfer is denied by APNIC, does it mean the IP address will be 
wasted on the Internet ?

(2) If there are no need policy applied , can it help the un-routed IP address 
utilization %  ?

(3) The recipient request transfer does it mean they have real demend for IPv4 
address ?

(4) Can this "no need policy"  help to re-use/recycle the old IP address / 
legacy IP address to the new owner?


(5) Saving a lot of APNIC work load ? HR ?




Thank you very much !








Best Regards,













Ernest Tse

Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.

// Web: 
https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=xF2otKml8FKK0iLyO1O8hgJEEKE0n4lX3qwSddKMZq8-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXOU0MXB1M8x3Zyxddwnmd-2BJFGTup-2Fm-2FOBCBruX94EjntWXtsEjJB4S8EdcySKYTpJ48CoZLq5KqT-2FeAUG5aqHfWtwj-2BDx4lLNAOEpp-2BYKkWuiBXzR9SBNd9RdFEf0EV7MCKUV4vvEF6KF0MBajG87xlOsopovalcoMYYKUJ9L9tg-3D-3D

// Tel:  +852-21570550

//Mobile: +852-62536678


//Skype: codesixs








On Wed, 23/08/2017 15.34, Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
Thanks George for the details.

> 

So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist. 


> 


> 

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Aftab,
> 

> 
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
> 

> 
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the
> 
last 12 months is 97.
> 

> 
Below is the breakdown of reasons:
> 
Fraud:                                   4
> 
Recipient could not demonstrate needs:   1
> 
Recipient did not accept transfer:       6
> 
Requests corrected as M&A transfer:     23
> 
No response from member:                30
> 
Member requested to cancel transfer:    33
> 

> 
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part
> 
of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
> 

> 

> 
George
> 

> 

> 
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
> 
> Hi Aftab,
> 
>
> 
> For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15
> 
> August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week.
> 
> On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to
> 
> complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a
> 
> correspondence within two working days.
> 
>
> 
> We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as
> 
> soon as I have the information.
> 
>
> 
> thanks,
> 
>
> 
> George
> 
>
> 
>
> 
> On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> 
>> Dear APNIC Sec,
> 
>>
> 
>> Can you share some stats:
> 
>>
> 
>> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
> 
>> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
> 
>> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
> 
>> - How long does it take to process a transfer request?
> 
>> - Does it create any administrative burden?
> 
>>
> 
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <[email protected]
> 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>>
> 
>>     Dear SIG members
> 
>>
> 
>>     The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was
> 
>> discussed at
> 
>>     APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
> 
>>
> 
>>     It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which
> 
>> will
> 
>>     be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15
> 
>> September
> 
>>     2017.
> 
>>
> 
>>     Information about the proposal is available from:
> 
>>
> 
>>         
>> https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=xF2otKml8FKK0iLyO1O8huUrPPtUbHhO65cb-2BIfOx1yQjk8JFqaVBIhGSNZmoA60U12-2BFRY8sOsUAtEqjBQpgg-3D-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXOU0MXB1M8x3Zyxddwnmd-2BpL6lHwdvvEHjwxb8xCJXzq7RGRCbTCLN2p33Q-2FrUVHG-2BmMkPeGf04sMeiEhw-2BR7Dby4ndAYqn5CTiPe8m0ipInm9O1YGN6QY2Mfktr2H1T1I18gSL90nmzW0KoYtJfU-2Fve-2F1rGWi87-2BNtfqN1t72zA-3D-3D
> 
>>
> 
>>     You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
> 
>>
> 
>>      - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
> 
>>      - 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?
> 
>>
> 
>>     Please find the text of the proposal below.
> 
>>
> 
>>     Kind Regards,
> 
>>
> 
>>     Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> 
>>     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://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=16bEysF9x2jUX1XY2ZMKUrALMsHil-2BpVmNTNd6yDOuFusAIW7wV7s3bVF4S4QfQhmE-2FurmywiubVNS9Y1KHJMw-3D-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXOU0MXB1M8x3Zyxddwnmd-2BI-2BVu8b3kSpNX6dUK-2FxiCvoSCj9pN-2FodVqYFw9b1CpWMb8aS9RJpU-2Bi-2FcGY3Ah2IA9vcPq-2FHfO33fT0T1n9yuwwNj-2BIpfoIkFCY0RLFxu9wExfS-2Fm6NwPYpet-2B5ECAx5oOMc839sxLDllyh1kbn-2BmCA-3D-3D
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>>     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-chair mailing list
> 
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
>>     
>> https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=16bEysF9x2jUX1XY2ZMKUmipBN84-2BmQ2TjZWRnzKphdJ0-2BKxcniH6DgValcOC2Gu39-2FFoXqAQ5U9evI0jdNBsk-2FpNKgh-2F8kxs9khcXTG1Nc-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXOU0MXB1M8x3Zyxddwnmd-2BN0TPfIRugwBUdTcfnfwjYXCqwmlj5KHuIWRF-2BESplxRdF5XPHHcDDMSrpx3s1snwOPFWP2mpnrF5F3jvi7Gl1A9cdwNKGGlg0bsdPO5jcNoPNItfyIyBdte7dR9oCbts0THYny6PoJ2jDUj2mkpw0Q-3D-3D
> 
>>     *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> 
>>              *
> 
>>     _______________________________________________
> 
>>     sig-policy mailing list
> 
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
>>     
>> https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=16bEysF9x2jUX1XY2ZMKUmipBN84-2BmQ2TjZWRnzKphdJ0-2BKxcniH6DgValcOC2GuxhPMQtuW0tiU5TPMpCEiaQ-3D-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXOU0MXB1M8x3Zyxddwnmd-2B5xx4nSstRaXEhJgkvnrRLkr7bmU8ktSDUvHFA-2FUXe2Z4NutPqL-2Foz0bX8oW8WDEHGm5110BYL2og5eB9SGVvFyCHA-2Bto05i3iD7R8wyBuDD1UVDFL2IdqkWdnxwbK7R8Cjh8sCJPSFNThqnHPvbKDz8SZ3h0yprl4yTaMVX4oP8-3D
> 
>>
> 
>> --
> 
>> Best Wishes,
> 
>>
> 
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management
> 
>> policy           *
> 
>> _______________________________________________
> 
>> sig-policy mailing list
> 
>> [email protected]
> 
>> https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=16bEysF9x2jUX1XY2ZMKUmipBN84-2BmQ2TjZWRnzKphdJ0-2BKxcniH6DgValcOC2GuxhPMQtuW0tiU5TPMpCEiaQ-3D-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXOU0MXB1M8x3Zyxddwnmd-2BjEIrX0idur9IFQzbPTMKM0sLICA2ejgRUtwt0pvz22qoJVrIC6Hxyt1J1edqjfHENHqxbhWKiZXC3ruB0v0jRSELOEop3gZJB43kJfuZs3jj9uTqyqTQ4RxE4qRyb-2F6akWxnY89hZ6-2Fq5bBuLpuGEU6e-2Fv4nDWXAshxIiihLd4M-3D
> 
>>
> 


-- 



Best Wishes,



Aftab A. Siddiqui




        *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy     
      *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=16bEysF9x2jUX1XY2ZMKUmipBN84-2BmQ2TjZWRnzKphdJ0-2BKxcniH6DgValcOC2GuxhPMQtuW0tiU5TPMpCEiaQ-3D-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXOU0MXB1M8x3Zyxddwnmd-2BNqSWJgIyqm5o-2B-2BkQamgQa3Eh-2B4NXa-2FCa91CW1oA6PIUjCAmoq-2FvPS41EjSQ-2FLCzw3VZ15Sz71fMRrFQIi-2BQQEd2jYzDmQm9gX2Xm8dscWAsV-2BpO4JYHJSHWyrEfpEMJbkrqiuZbzRn94Tb0PDsl5o5k-2Bn99X1uNrlG8Uh1bXgAE-3D
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to