Hi Dean and all,

Transfer is essentially re-delegation process and the IPv4 policy is quite specific in delegation size based on 1 year need:

"Based on these factors, APNIC and NIRs will delegate address space to meet the LIR's estimated needs for a period up to one year up to the maximum allowed delegation under Section 3. If APNIC or the NIR make a delegation based on a period of less than one year, then they must inform the LIR of the length of the period and the reasons for selecting it."

I don't see ways to accommodate prop-104 need without changing the policy. The needs based transfer evaluation introduced by prop-096 must have boundaries. Otherwise, as per Adam's latest post to the list, people may come with a 15 year or 100 year planning window that would be hard to decline.

Regards, Sanjaya

On 31/07/2012 1:05 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

Good Afternoon,

A lot of this policy looks to compare the current APNIC situation with that in other RIRs, I do not believe a difference in itself is a reason to change policy. Just because it is done differently elsewhere, while interesting, should not be a necessary and sufficient condition for policy change within this region.

Therefore the justification for this policy really boils down to:

...

Furthermore, 12 months is also too short for transfers within the APNIC region considering many xSPs plan their service and their addressing requirements beyond one year.

As with prop-99. I'd like to ask Sanjaya, is there a way to accomodate this situation under the current policies. For example, If a user were able to justify their needs for a two year period, would the hostmasters support a transfer under the current policies.

We can then see if there appears to be a problem.

Kind Regards, Dean