j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
Thanks for your clarification.
My concern with APNIC 'going it alone' would mean we are at risk of being 'raided' as one of the only sources of IPv4 addresses post IPv4 run out.
-----Original Message----- From: Geoff Huston [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Friday, 27 July 2007 12:40 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
Thanks for your note. The wording of "current account holder" is intended to apply at any time - i.e. a new account holder is a "current account holder".
As to whether this is a "first step to a global trading scheme" is really up to others - if you are of the opinion that such a mechanism is appropriate, then the course is open to introduce policy proposals in each of the address forums to such an effect. In this case the policy proposal is more modestly limited to APNIC current account holders.
Nick Hannaford wrote:
I appreciate your proposal and subsequent clarification as I had the same questions as Philip.
Whilst I understand this is just an intra-APNIC exchange mechanism, it
appears to be limited to "current APNIC account holders".
Does this mean we are 'closing the door' on new members being able to trade IPv4?
Otherwise, if it is open to new members, there may (or may not) be an issue where a satellite office of an ISP, from another non Asia-Pac region, can join APNIC thus being eligible to 'acquire' existing APNIC
(ie Asia-Pac) addressing which could be used elsewhere.
I suggest we may want to do some form of clarification on who is eligible _or_ look at this as a first step to a possible global