Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Hi APNIC Secretariat
How many transfers will be affected by prop-116-v006, since 14th Sep 2017 ?
Regards Muhammad Yasir Shamim
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 1:13 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 8
Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net
You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-owner@lists.apnic.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy (Rajesh Panwala) 2. sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 7 (Yasir Shamim, Muhammad)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:33:57 +0530 From: Rajesh Panwala rajesh@smartlinkindia.com To: Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz Cc: sig-policy sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy Message-ID: CAFtveg6Qvzwz59-iz2ZhBCaMir0TTtxzF53ZDkYf0c8O34P4tQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Team,
My submission is " All M&A cases should be excluded from denying the transfer."
As M&A is routine business activity, there is no point barring transfer.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz wrote:
Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear definition of "genuine". It is unfair to them to expect that they administer a rule which is not well defined.
Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <rajesh@smartlinkindia.com
wrote:
I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take
place.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 <+91%2092278%2086001>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8 block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The community was not aware of the restriction when they received those resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
?Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) which have not passed five years after its
allocation/assignment?
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
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 Muhammad,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (five years count back from today) to 14th Sep 2017 is 10868.
After 14th Sep 2017, the number of delegations from 103/8 pool is 663.
Total 11531 delegations from 103/8 have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment.
Kind regards, Guangliang ==========
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Yasir Shamim, Muhammad Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 6:39 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Hi APNIC Secretariat
How many transfers will be affected by prop-116-v006, since 14th Sep 2017 ?
Regards Muhammad Yasir Shamim
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 1:13 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 8
Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net
You can reach the person managing the list at sig-policy-owner@lists.apnic.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy (Rajesh Panwala) 2. sig-policy Digest, Vol 164, Issue 7 (Yasir Shamim, Muhammad)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:33:57 +0530 From: Rajesh Panwala rajesh@smartlinkindia.com To: Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz Cc: sig-policy sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy Message-ID: CAFtveg6Qvzwz59-iz2ZhBCaMir0TTtxzF53ZDkYf0c8O34P4tQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Team,
My submission is " All M&A cases should be excluded from denying the transfer."
As M&A is routine business activity, there is no point barring transfer.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz wrote:
Rajesh, the issue will be that the Secretariat has to be given a clear definition of "genuine". It is unfair to them to expect that they administer a rule which is not well defined.
Putting a date makes life clear (not better, but clear).
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Rajesh Panwala <rajesh@smartlinkindia.com
wrote:
I partially support the policy. For genuine M&A cases , there should not be any restriction on transfer of resources. M&A activities are part and parcel of routine business and no one knows when will it take
place.
regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001 <+91%2092278%2086001>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Cherrier < b.cherrier@micrologic.nc> wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8 block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The community was not aware of the restriction when they received those resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
?Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) which have not passed five years after its
allocation/assignment?
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
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
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
Activity Summary
- 2067 days inactive
- 2067 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 1 comments