Thank you Sanjaya for making that clear.
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
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.
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
> We can then see if there appears to be a problem.
> Kind Regards,
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list