Hello Jordi,
There are transfers fees that in one side, cover the work-load done by the staff, and the EC could set specific temporary transfer fees if this becomes a problem.
If the EC determines that setting a fee to cover the increase in workload then yes, this could indeed resolve the issue.
I understand this is the case as the secretariat impact analysis didn't mention this as a possible issue.
My reply was sent prior to the Secretariat sharing their impact assessment, so some points I've raised may not necessarily have been identified as an issue by them.
For example, if a conference organizer or a big temporary setup needs the addresses for just one month, why not?
If resources are only needed for a month, is it worth the trouble going through the transfer process for just that one month and paying any required fees?
I agree that in most cases, it will become a 1-2 or even 3 years period, but why restricting special cases that may need more?
As mentioned in my original remark, if the intent of this proposal is to accommodate for networks to transition to a native IPv6-only network then 3 years would be more than sufficient. In what circumstances would providers also need to transfer space for a period longer than 3 years?
The proposal already restricts it to a maximum /22, so I can't see the misuse that you mention. May be you can explain it?
If the intent is to support IPv6 transition, the misuse could be that people may use the proposal (if passed) to transfer resources for other purposes.
I've seen, worldwide, many cases where members with shorter IPv4 prefixes, even obtained recently, didn't plan correctly and timely for the transition, because they didn't forecasted well their expected growth, etc., so I don't think that will be good.
I agree that potentially the requirement for holdings no shorter than a /22 v4 prefix could be struck out, however the time in which they were obtained should (in my view) remain. I appreciate that it may be difficult to make resources available for IPv6 transitioning on an existing network and an operator that holds a /22 v4 prefix may determine that they require a /23 v4 prefix to successfully transition but having said this, network operators who have obtained space in the last two years should have very well factored in the ability to transition to IPv6.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
