Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Hello,
I oppose this proposal as written.
I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations. I believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the Membership Agreement (found at: https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/m... https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/ ), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work with APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG.
Thank you, David
David Huberman | Principal Program Manager Oracle Cloud 1501 4th Ave #1800 Seattle, WA 98101 USA
Hi,
On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" david.huberman@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
I oppose this proposal as written.
I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely administrative.
I
believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
From a business point of view, this policy came as a reaction to requests
from customers, yes.
Policies are there to accommodate the distribution and operation of the various parties operating in the region.
Some see a benefit in having a system like this in place, attacking the policy based on our company's services is a bit odd at best.
Some organization's are not willing to buy IPv4 space as a form of permanent transfer, they do not believe in IPv4 remaining the dominant protocol for the years to come but do need some IPs for some expansion and projects that they can later simply return back, other giant internet organizations with too much money don't care and are currently buying up everything on offer.
This proposal would help leveling that field a bit.
If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the Membership Agreement (found at: https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate- documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/ ), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work with APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG.
I really don't follow your logic here.
Thank you, David
David Huberman | Principal Program Manager Oracle Cloud 1501 4th Ave #1800 Seattle, WA 98101 USA
* 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
Regards, David Hilario
Hi Proposer,
I have same view as Mr. David Huberman.
From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
- Problem statement
It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA".
or your message on Aug 17th,
It actually came up a few time from larger networks who tend to want that, it is a form of long term leasing for them, they want the resources into their registry out of convenience but also due to internal procedures, they for example only want to commit for a 5 year period while preparing their IPv6 and then return the space.
The do not want to receive a sub-allocation or assignment, as it needs to be part of their LIR/registry for them to be able to count it into the network inventory and use the address.
Some organisation have strict policies against use of external IP space.
or your another message on Aug 17th,
The policy came to be as we have had several large companies actually asking for such type of transfers.
It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers.
It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time.
or your another message on Aug 18th,
If it is not registered to your LIR in your registry, you cannot send an email to helpdesk@apnic.net as it is not your space to control in APNIC DB in the first place, but the space from your LIR that has issued the space to you, your LIR decides how to register it and which maintainers will be on it, you are not in full control.
And ultimately for the ones using RPKI, it needs to be under their control to issue ROAs in MyAPNIC and not rely on any other parties for their own IP management.
I could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as well as the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy. Rather, it sounds some kind of "nice to have" which is not enough justification as the problem statement for v4 space in these days.
Regards, Masato
2017-08-22 18:47 GMT-07:00 David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net:
Hi,
On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" david.huberman@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
I oppose this proposal as written.
I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely administrative.
I
believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
From a business point of view, this policy came as a reaction to requests from customers, yes.
Policies are there to accommodate the distribution and operation of the various parties operating in the region.
Some see a benefit in having a system like this in place, attacking the policy based on our company's services is a bit odd at best.
Some organization's are not willing to buy IPv4 space as a form of permanent transfer, they do not believe in IPv4 remaining the dominant protocol for the years to come but do need some IPs for some expansion and projects that they can later simply return back, other giant internet organizations with too much money don't care and are currently buying up everything on offer.
This proposal would help leveling that field a bit.
If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the Membership Agreement (found at: https://www.apnic.net/abou t-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/ ), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work with APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG.
I really don't follow your logic here.
Thank you, David
David Huberman | Principal Program Manager Oracle Cloud 1501 4th Ave #1800 Seattle, WA 98101 USA
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
Regards, David Hilario
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
Hi,
On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Proposer,
I have same view as Mr. David Huberman. From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
- Problem statement
It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA".
or your message on Aug 17th,
It actually came up a few time from larger networks who tend to want that, it is a form of long term leasing for them, they want the resources into their registry out of convenience but also due to internal procedures, they for example only want to commit for a 5 year period while preparing their IPv6 and then return the space.
The do not want to receive a sub-allocation or assignment, as it needs to be part of their LIR/registry for them to be able to count it into the network inventory and use the address.
Some organisation have strict policies against use of external IP space.
or your another message on Aug 17th,
The policy came to be as we have had several large companies actually asking for such type of transfers.
It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers.
It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time.
or your another message on Aug 18th,
If it is not registered to your LIR in your registry, you cannot send an email to helpdesk@apnic.net as it is not your space to control in APNIC DB in the first place, but the space from your LIR that has issued the space to you, your LIR decides how to register it and which maintainers will be on it, you are not in full control.
And ultimately for the ones using RPKI, it needs to be under their control to issue ROAs in MyAPNIC and not rely on any other parties for their own IP management.
I could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as well as the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy. Rather, it sounds some kind of "nice to have" which is not enough justification as the problem statement for v4 space in these days.
Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as to not having them at all. You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
So it is a bit more than simply "nice to have", but indeed, it would be nice to have.
Being able to have full control for X amount of time would be "nice to have" for those who want to have it for their own organisation.
If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?
Regards, Masato
2017-08-22 18:47 GMT-07:00 David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net:
Hi,
On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" david.huberman@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
I oppose this proposal as written.
I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely administrative.
I
believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
From a business point of view, this policy came as a reaction to requests from customers, yes.
Policies are there to accommodate the distribution and operation of the various parties operating in the region.
Some see a benefit in having a system like this in place, attacking the policy based on our company's services is a bit odd at best.
Some organization's are not willing to buy IPv4 space as a form of permanent transfer, they do not believe in IPv4 remaining the dominant protocol for the years to come but do need some IPs for some expansion and projects that they can later simply return back, other giant internet organizations with too much money don't care and are currently buying up everything on offer.
This proposal would help leveling that field a bit.
If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the Membership Agreement (found at: https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/m... ), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work with APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG.
I really don't follow your logic here.
Thank you, David
David Huberman | Principal Program Manager Oracle Cloud 1501 4th Ave #1800 Seattle, WA 98101 USA
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
Regards, David Hilario
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
David Hilario
IP Manager
Larus Cloud Service Limited
p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 f: +852 29888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net e: d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
Hi David,
Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not.
Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
to not having them at all.
You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
I'm afraid you just rephrased what you wrote previously, which was not clear for me. So still unclear. Let me ask more specifically. What do you mean by "full control of the resources in the APNIC database"? What do you mean by "control the RPKI or reverse delegation"? Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to manage RPKI or reverse delegation? Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to point NS record of assigned space to their customer?
If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object
it?
NO. I don't think it is enough justification nor problem statement to propose the policy, in particular for v4.
Still, against for this proposal.
Regards, Matt
2017-08-23 21:01 GMT-07:00 David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net:
Hi,
On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Proposer,
I have same view as Mr. David Huberman. From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
- Problem statement
It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA".
or your message on Aug 17th,
It actually came up a few time from larger networks who tend to want that, it is a form of long term leasing for them, they want the resources into their registry out of convenience but also due to internal procedures, they for example only want to commit for a 5 year period while preparing their IPv6 and then return the space.
The do not want to receive a sub-allocation or assignment, as it needs to be part of their LIR/registry for them to be able to count it into the network inventory and use the address.
Some organisation have strict policies against use of external IP space.
or your another message on Aug 17th,
The policy came to be as we have had several large companies actually asking for such type of transfers.
It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers.
It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time.
or your another message on Aug 18th,
If it is not registered to your LIR in your registry, you cannot send an email to helpdesk@apnic.net as it is not your space to control in APNIC DB in the first place, but the space from your LIR that has issued the space to you, your LIR decides how to register it and which maintainers will be on it, you are not in full control.
And ultimately for the ones using RPKI, it needs to be under their control to issue ROAs in MyAPNIC and not rely on any other parties for their own IP management.
I could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as
well as
the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy. Rather, it sounds some kind of "nice to have" which is not enough justification as the problem statement for v4 space in these days.
Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as to not having them at all. You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
So it is a bit more than simply "nice to have", but indeed, it would be nice to have.
Being able to have full control for X amount of time would be "nice to have" for those who want to have it for their own organisation.
If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?
Regards, Masato
2017-08-22 18:47 GMT-07:00 David Hilario <d.hilario@laruscloudservice.
net>:
Hi,
On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" david.huberman@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
I oppose this proposal as written.
I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely administrative.
I
believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale
and
leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
From a business point of view, this policy came as a reaction to
requests
from customers, yes.
Policies are there to accommodate the distribution and operation of the various parties operating in the region.
Some see a benefit in having a system like this in place, attacking the policy based on our company's services is a bit odd at best.
Some organization's are not willing to buy IPv4 space as a form of permanent transfer, they do not believe in IPv4 remaining the dominant protocol for the years to come but do need some IPs for some expansion
and
projects that they can later simply return back, other giant internet organizations with too much money don't care and are currently buying up everything on offer.
This proposal would help leveling that field a bit.
If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the Membership Agreement (found at: https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/
documents/membership/membership-agreement/
), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work
with
APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG.
I really don't follow your logic here.
Thank you, David
David Huberman | Principal Program Manager Oracle Cloud 1501 4th Ave #1800 Seattle, WA 98101 USA
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
Regards, David Hilario
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
David Hilario
IP Manager
Larus Cloud Service Limited
p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 f: +852 29888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net e: d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
Hi Matt,
On 1 September 2017 at 10:30, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not.
Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
to not having them at all.
You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
I'm afraid you just rephrased what you wrote previously, which was not clear for me. So still unclear. Let me ask more specifically. What do you mean by "full control of the resources in the APNIC database"?
You have your own maintainer on the resources and simply manage everything yourself, just like if the space was directly allocated to you by APNIC. No changes in your organisation and in any of your systems on how to provision the address space and link it to the APNIC database.
What do you mean by "control the RPKI or reverse delegation"?
All managed on your own through the normal platform issued by APNIC, you do not need to rely on 3rd party for the setup or management of these functionalities.
Same as you will control the route objects creations and any more specific inetnum creations in the APNIC Database.
Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to manage RPKI or reverse delegation?
Mainly internal rules, security related, many organisations prefers to be in charge of things where they can, and not rely on third parties, not everyone is outsourcing.
If you rely on another LIR, you rely entirely on a third party not to screw up, can be as simple as a bad script, during the whole leasing period. Or you can have a temporary transfer and the only one that can screw up is your own organisation or APNIC, you simply reduce the risk factors.
Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to point NS record of assigned space to their customer?
Same as above, to be in control, and not outsourcing to third parties when one can avoid it.
If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?
NO. I don't think it is enough justification nor problem statement to propose the policy, in particular for v4.
Why? Where would the adverse effect be to the community or the IPv4 pool in general from that policy proposal? It only offers an option to some organisation.
Still, against for this proposal.
Regards, Matt
2017-08-23 21:01 GMT-07:00 David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net:
Hi,
On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Proposer,
I have same view as Mr. David Huberman. From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
- Problem statement
It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA".
or your message on Aug 17th,
It actually came up a few time from larger networks who tend to want that, it is a form of long term leasing for them, they want the resources into their registry out of convenience but also due to internal procedures, they for example only want to commit for a 5 year period while preparing their IPv6 and then return the space.
The do not want to receive a sub-allocation or assignment, as it needs to be part of their LIR/registry for them to be able to count it into the network inventory and use the address.
Some organisation have strict policies against use of external IP space.
or your another message on Aug 17th,
The policy came to be as we have had several large companies actually asking for such type of transfers.
It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers.
It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time.
or your another message on Aug 18th,
If it is not registered to your LIR in your registry, you cannot send an email to helpdesk@apnic.net as it is not your space to control in APNIC DB in the first place, but the space from your LIR that has issued the space to you, your LIR decides how to register it and which maintainers will be on it, you are not in full control.
And ultimately for the ones using RPKI, it needs to be under their control to issue ROAs in MyAPNIC and not rely on any other parties for their own IP management.
I could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as well as the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy. Rather, it sounds some kind of "nice to have" which is not enough justification as the problem statement for v4 space in these days.
Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as to not having them at all. You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
So it is a bit more than simply "nice to have", but indeed, it would be nice to have.
Being able to have full control for X amount of time would be "nice to have" for those who want to have it for their own organisation.
If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?
Regards, Masato
2017-08-22 18:47 GMT-07:00 David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net:
Hi,
On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" david.huberman@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
I oppose this proposal as written.
I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely administrative.
I
believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
From a business point of view, this policy came as a reaction to requests from customers, yes.
Policies are there to accommodate the distribution and operation of the various parties operating in the region.
Some see a benefit in having a system like this in place, attacking the policy based on our company's services is a bit odd at best.
Some organization's are not willing to buy IPv4 space as a form of permanent transfer, they do not believe in IPv4 remaining the dominant protocol for the years to come but do need some IPs for some expansion and projects that they can later simply return back, other giant internet organizations with too much money don't care and are currently buying up everything on offer.
This proposal would help leveling that field a bit.
If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the Membership Agreement (found at:
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/m... ), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work with APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG.
I really don't follow your logic here.
Thank you, David
David Huberman | Principal Program Manager Oracle Cloud 1501 4th Ave #1800 Seattle, WA 98101 USA
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
Regards, David Hilario
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
David Hilario
IP Manager
Larus Cloud Service Limited
p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 f: +852 29888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net e: d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
Dear David,
The APNIC Secretariat is reviewing the policy proposals under discussion and seeks clarification to better understand the intention of prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers.
APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and only requires clarification to ensure correct implementation should the proposal reach consensus.
- Will recipient organisations of a temporary transfer be required to be an APNIC account holder?
- Will Historical Resources be covered by this policy?
The Secretariat believes an administrative and legal review of this proposal is required. Further questions may arise as a result of that review.
We appreciate your clarification.
Regards,
Adam
_______________________________________________________ Adam Gosling Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC e: adam@apnic.net p: +61 7 3858 3142 m: +61 421 456 243 www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________
Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________
On 1/9/17, 17:31, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Masato Yamanishi" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of myamanis@gmail.commailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi David,
Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not.
Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
to not having them at all.
You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
I'm afraid you just rephrased what you wrote previously, which was not clear for me. So still unclear. Let me ask more specifically. What do you mean by "full control of the resources in the APNIC database"? What do you mean by "control the RPKI or reverse delegation"? Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to manage RPKI or reverse delegation? Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to point NS record of assigned space to their customer?
If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?
NO. I don't think it is enough justification nor problem statement to propose the policy, in particular for v4.
Still, against for this proposal.
Regards, Matt
2017-08-23 21:01 GMT-07:00 David Hilario <d.hilario@laruscloudservice.netmailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net>: Hi,
On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.commailto:myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Proposer,
I have same view as Mr. David Huberman. From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
- Problem statement
It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA".
or your message on Aug 17th,
It actually came up a few time from larger networks who tend to want that, it is a form of long term leasing for them, they want the resources into their registry out of convenience but also due to internal procedures, they for example only want to commit for a 5 year period while preparing their IPv6 and then return the space.
The do not want to receive a sub-allocation or assignment, as it needs to be part of their LIR/registry for them to be able to count it into the network inventory and use the address.
Some organisation have strict policies against use of external IP space.
or your another message on Aug 17th,
The policy came to be as we have had several large companies actually asking for such type of transfers.
It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers.
It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time.
or your another message on Aug 18th,
If it is not registered to your LIR in your registry, you cannot send an email to helpdesk@apnic.netmailto:helpdesk@apnic.net as it is not your space to control in APNIC DB in the first place, but the space from your LIR that has issued the space to you, your LIR decides how to register it and which maintainers will be on it, you are not in full control.
And ultimately for the ones using RPKI, it needs to be under their control to issue ROAs in MyAPNIC and not rely on any other parties for their own IP management.
I could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as well as the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy. Rather, it sounds some kind of "nice to have" which is not enough justification as the problem statement for v4 space in these days.
Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as to not having them at all. You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
So it is a bit more than simply "nice to have", but indeed, it would be nice to have.
Being able to have full control for X amount of time would be "nice to have" for those who want to have it for their own organisation.
If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?
Regards, Masato
2017-08-22 18:47 GMT-07:00 David Hilario <d.hilario@laruscloudservice.netmailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net>:
Hi,
On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" <david.huberman@oracle.commailto:david.huberman@oracle.com> wrote:
Hello,
I oppose this proposal as written.
I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely administrative.
I
believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
From a business point of view, this policy came as a reaction to requests from customers, yes.
Policies are there to accommodate the distribution and operation of the various parties operating in the region.
Some see a benefit in having a system like this in place, attacking the policy based on our company's services is a bit odd at best.
Some organization's are not willing to buy IPv4 space as a form of permanent transfer, they do not believe in IPv4 remaining the dominant protocol for the years to come but do need some IPs for some expansion and projects that they can later simply return back, other giant internet organizations with too much money don't care and are currently buying up everything on offer.
This proposal would help leveling that field a bit.
If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the Membership Agreement (found at: https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/m... ), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work with APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG.
I really don't follow your logic here.
Thank you, David
David Huberman | Principal Program Manager Oracle Cloud 1501 4th Ave #1800 Seattle, WA 98101 USA
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Regards, David Hilario
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
David Hilario
IP Manager
Larus Cloud Service Limited
p: +852 29888918tel:%2B852%2029888918 m: +359 89 764 1784tel:%2B359%2089%20764%201784 f: +852 29888068tel:%2B852%2029888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.nethttp://laruscloudservice.net e: d.hilario@laruscloudservice.netmailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
Dear Adam,
On 1 September 2017 at 11:09, Adam Gosling adam@apnic.net wrote:
Dear David,
The APNIC Secretariat is reviewing the policy proposals under discussion and seeks clarification to better understand the intention of prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers.
APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and only requires clarification to ensure correct implementation should the proposal reach consensus.
- Will recipient organisations of a temporary transfer be required to be an
APNIC account holder?
The same as under the current transfer policy. https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/#conditi...
- Will Historical Resources be covered by this policy?
Yes, to the extent that if historical resource holders would like to make use of the policy, they could. It would be no different from today that the space loses its historical status, this policy is not aiming at changing this.
Since the current APNIC document states "All transferred resources are subject to all applicable APNIC policies": https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/#conditi...
As a consequence of the use of the temporary transfer, the offering party would be required to be an APNIC account holder or member or NIR account holder or member, in order to be able to receive the address space back at the end of the lease, the space would also not regain its historical status at that moment as the conversion is a one way conversion.
That would be a consequence of making use of the temporary policy and the current way they are being handled, I am not seeking in limiting or changing the way historical resources are being handled.
The Secretariat believes an administrative and legal review of this proposal is required. Further questions may arise as a result of that review.
We appreciate your clarification.
Regards,
Adam
Adam Gosling
Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC
e: adam@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3142
m: +61 421 456 243
www.apnic.net
Join the conversation: https://blog.apnic.net/
On 1/9/17, 17:31, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Masato Yamanishi" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi David,
Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not.
Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
to not having them at all.
You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
I'm afraid you just rephrased what you wrote previously, which was not clear for me. So still unclear.
Let me ask more specifically.
What do you mean by "full control of the resources in the APNIC database"?
What do you mean by "control the RPKI or reverse delegation"?
Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to manage RPKI or reverse delegation?
Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to point NS record of assigned space to their customer?
If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?
NO. I don't think it is enough justification nor problem statement to propose the policy, in particular for v4.
Still, against for this proposal.
Regards,
Matt
2017-08-23 21:01 GMT-07:00 David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net:
Hi,
On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Proposer,
I have same view as Mr. David Huberman. From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
- Problem statement
It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA".
or your message on Aug 17th,
It actually came up a few time from larger networks who tend to want that, it is a form of long term leasing for them, they want the resources into their registry out of convenience but also due to internal procedures, they for example only want to commit for a 5 year period while preparing their IPv6 and then return the space.
The do not want to receive a sub-allocation or assignment, as it needs to be part of their LIR/registry for them to be able to count it into the network inventory and use the address.
Some organisation have strict policies against use of external IP space.
or your another message on Aug 17th,
The policy came to be as we have had several large companies actually asking for such type of transfers.
It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers.
It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time.
or your another message on Aug 18th,
If it is not registered to your LIR in your registry, you cannot send an email to helpdesk@apnic.net as it is not your space to control in APNIC DB in the first place, but the space from your LIR that has issued the space to you, your LIR decides how to register it and which maintainers will be on it, you are not in full control.
And ultimately for the ones using RPKI, it needs to be under their control to issue ROAs in MyAPNIC and not rely on any other parties for their own IP management.
I could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as well as the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy. Rather, it sounds some kind of "nice to have" which is not enough justification as the problem statement for v4 space in these days.
Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as to not having them at all. You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database, you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
So it is a bit more than simply "nice to have", but indeed, it would be nice to have.
Being able to have full control for X amount of time would be "nice to have" for those who want to have it for their own organisation.
If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?
Regards, Masato
2017-08-22 18:47 GMT-07:00 David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net:
Hi,
On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" david.huberman@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
I oppose this proposal as written.
I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely administrative.
I
believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
From a business point of view, this policy came as a reaction to requests from customers, yes.
Policies are there to accommodate the distribution and operation of the various parties operating in the region.
Some see a benefit in having a system like this in place, attacking the policy based on our company's services is a bit odd at best.
Some organization's are not willing to buy IPv4 space as a form of permanent transfer, they do not believe in IPv4 remaining the dominant protocol for the years to come but do need some IPs for some expansion and projects that they can later simply return back, other giant internet organizations with too much money don't care and are currently buying up everything on offer.
This proposal would help leveling that field a bit.
If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the Membership Agreement (found at:
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/m... ), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work with APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG.
I really don't follow your logic here.
Thank you, David
David Huberman | Principal Program Manager Oracle Cloud 1501 4th Ave #1800 Seattle, WA 98101 USA
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
Regards, David Hilario
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
David Hilario
IP Manager
Larus Cloud Service Limited
p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 f: +852 29888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net e: d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
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
David Hilario
IP Manager
Larus Cloud Service Limited
p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 f: +852 29888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net e: d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
Activity Summary
- 2220 days inactive
- 2220 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 4 participants
- 7 comments