Dear community, We support the previous version that 103/8 can't be transfered in 2 years. 2 years limit is reasonable. Changing the time limit from 2 years to 5 years was a big change to the proposal 116. Many community members didn't know the change if they didn't attent this meeting. After this big change, We didn't understand why not return it to the mailing list to discusse before gauge consensus onsite. Regards,
发件人: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists. apnic.net] 代表 sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net 发送时间: 2017年9月18日 15:45 收件人: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net 主题: sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27 Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy@lists.apnic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-requ...@lists.apnic.net You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-ow...@lists.apnic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Moratorium on 103/8 transfers (Secretariat) 2. Final Comment Period for prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 add resses in the final /8 block (chku) 3. prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region returned to author (chku) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:38:07 +1000 From: Secretariat <secretar...@apnic.net> To: <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Moratorium on 103/8 transfers Message-ID: <85f26a94-19b2-1071-3cd5-ac2977491...@apnic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed ________________________________________________________________________ Moratorium on 103/8 transfers ________________________________________________________________________ At APNIC 44 in Taichung last week, policy proposal prop-116 ?Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block? reached consensus. https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/prop-116-v006.txt At the APNIC Member Meeting on Thursday, 14 September, the APNIC Executive Council (EC) placed an immediate moratorium on all transfers from the 103/8 block. This moratorium is now in place and any transfer request from 103/8 received by APNIC on or after 14 September 2017 will be deferred until such time that the moratorium is lifted by the APNIC EC. When prop-116 completes the remaining steps in the Policy Development Process, the APNIC Secretariat will advise the EC and community. The APNIC EC intends to lift the moratorium once the proposal either fails, or is implemented. ________________________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat???????????????????????????????? secretar...@apnic.net Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)?? Tel:? 61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia??? Fax:? 61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD??????????? http://www.apnic.net ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:43:32 +0800 (CST) From: "chku" <c...@twnic.net.tw> To: "sig-policy" <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Final Comment Period for prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 add resses in the final /8 block Message-ID: <1505720612.174740.c...@twnic.net.tw> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear colleagues A revised version "prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block" reached consensus at the APNIC 44 Policy SIG and then later at the APNIC Member Meeting (AMM). Synopsis: --------- The proposed policy solution reaching consensus is: Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment. If the address block allocated to a LIR in five years is not needed any more, it must return to APNIC to allocate to another organization using final /8 policy. This five years requirement will apply both market and M&A transfers. This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list for the final Comment Period. - Deadline for comments: 23:59 (UTC +10) Wednesday, 18 October 2017 Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to previous versions are available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-116/ Regards Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Tomohiro Fujisaki fujis...@syce.net 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 transfers from 103/8 block are 352, which is about 14% of the total number of transfers as of 10 Septermber 2017. This is the highest number of transfers in all APNIC managed /8s. And based on the information provided by APNIC Secretariat, number of transfers from the 103/8 block are increasing year by year. Updated by APNIC Secretariat on 27 January 2017: 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 | 63 | 239 | | 2017 | 45 | 178 | +------+-----------+------------+- 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 | 103 | 394 | | 2017 | 70 | 288 | +------+-----------+-----------+ 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 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 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 Resource Transfer Policies" says: 2.2 Transfer Restrictions Scarce resources, which are understood as those resources that are allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC on a restricted basis (such as IPv4 or 16-bit ASNs), cannot be transferred for 24 months from the date the resource was received by the resource holder. This restriction also applies if the resource was received due to a change in the organisation??s business (such as a merger or acquisition). 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment. If the address block allocated to a LIR in five years is not needed any more, it must return to APNIC to allocate to another organization using final /8 policy. This five years requirement will apply both market and M&A transfers. 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 ------------- RIPE Resource Transfer Policies http://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/transfer-policies -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: 00.txt URL: < http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20170918/0e64 5384/attachment.txt> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:44:52 +0800 (CST) From: "chku" <c...@twnic.net.tw> To: "sig-policy" <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region returned to author Message-ID: <1505720692.175013.c...@twnic.net.tw> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Dear colleagues Version 1 of prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 44 Open Policy Meeting. The Policy SIG Chairs returned the proposal to the author for further consideration and invited him to submit an amended version based on the community's feedback. Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and links to previous versions are available at: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-118/ Regards Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net 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 ------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: 00.txt URL: < http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/attachments/20170918/11b9 df79/attachment.txt> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 160, Issue 27 *******************************************
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
