j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear All, I'm commenting on the proposals in my personal capacity. In the first place, APNIC secretariat only refused very few requests, who fails to demonstrate the need for the transfer, and if anyone wants to grow their network, they have IPv6 address space available, I think the network should also demonstrate they are not capable of deploying IPv6 address space in their networks. This policy proposal will only help address brokers and will hinder the growth of IPv6 networks. Thanks & Regards, Shiva Upadhyay On Tuesday, 11 September, 2018, 8:32:59 AM IST, email@example.com wrote:
Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to firstname.lastname@example.org
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 email@example.com
You can reach the person managing the list at firstname.lastname@example.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
1. Re: A new version of the proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" (Satoru Tsurumaki) 2. Re: Prop124 version 4 (Satoru Tsurumaki)
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:01:06 +1100 From: Satoru Tsurumaki email@example.com To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" email@example.com Subject: Re: [sig-policy] A new version of the proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" Message-ID: CAHXx+kRXg3ReO_8PBPnR_jTcxhQ+fZAMKzKz0shQqsto=E-MSg@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
*Dear Colleagues,I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-118,based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals.Many supporting opinions were expressed on this proposal.However, many comments were expressed that proposer should feedback for the discussion which we discussed in past OPM. Below are details of opinions expressed. - Demand for 5 years: It is difficult to clarify a demand of address needs for both APNIC and LIR. - The policy should be looser. it will increase a possibilities of address transfer if time frame are expand from 2 years to 5 years. - The reason why APNIC clarify the request of transfer is for tranferring from ARIN. So inter-APNIC case, it not need originally and there is no reason to make a a clarification strictly.I agree with the purpose of the proposal. - Nevertheless, proposer should respond to the past comments. - I'd like to request to proposer to explain the intention of copying the implementation contents of RIPE NCC as it is. - The content of the previous discussion has not been reflected and it is not refined. Although the position of the proposal is not in an opposite position, the proponent should explain more. Please answer the discussion at APNIC 44.*
2018-08-08 4:44 GMT+11:00 Sumon Ahmed Sabir firstname.lastname@example.org:
Dear SIG members
A new version of the proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-118-v002: No need policy in APNIC region
Proposer: Heng Lu email@example.com
- Problem Statement
Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend to transfer.
Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
- Objective of policy change
Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff, increase database accuracy.
- Situation in other regions
RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their intended use of the resources.
ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.
AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource request from AFRINIC based on needs.
LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.
Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer policies, ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE region.
- Proposed policy solution
Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility:
- APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating to transfers within its service region.
- For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within 5 years.
- When transferring Internet number resources to another RIR, the APNIC will follow the transfer policies that apply within its own service region. The APNIC will also comply with the commitments imposed by the receiving RIR in order to facilitate the transfer.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
- Harmonisation with RIPE region. - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC and RIPE. - Maintains a compatibility with ARIN. - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on potentially badly documented needs. - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff.
- Impact on resource holders
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
- 1839 days inactive
- 1839 days old
- 1 participants
- 0 comments