Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j
: Next unread messagek
: Previous unread messagej a
: Jump to all threadsj l
: Jump to MailingList overview

Address transfer process ====
prop-050 states:
The proposal does not:
- Prescribe how such transfers may occur, nor
- Impose any further constraints on the transfer or on the parties involved.
There is no equivalent in prop-067.
Commentary from me:
This section wasn't in the two previous drafts of prop-050. I believe we should take this section at its word and drop the section describing "The address transfer process". This is an operational issue and should be left to APNIC staff to handle.
Fees ====
prop-050 states:
Transfer fees:
APNIC may charge the recipient a service fee on the transfer transaction. The transfer service fee may vary according to the total size of the address block being transferred.
The transfer fee schedule shall be set initially by the APNIC Executive Council upon adoption of this policy. The transfer fee schedule will be included as part of any future review of APNIC fees and charges.
There is no equivalent in prop-067.
Commentary from me:
It seems to me that this is where the fundamental difference between the two proposals lies and where change/compromise is needed although it's important to note that prop-050 says that "APNIC may charge" and that this is not a requirement.
Clearly APNIC will incur costs in implementing these transfers but there seems to be a conflict between the existing policy for addresses allocated from the current free pool and addresses potentially obtained under the proposed transfer policy.
The current 2008 membership fees and payment information (http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html) talks about:
IP resource application fee
A member's first address allocation request is subject to a non-refundable IP resource application fee of AU$3,169. Subsequent allocations are free of charges.
I'm struggling to see why any additional fee is warranted. The cost to a current member (which we've already required) should be the same regardless of the source of the addresses. APNIC's work in the transfer scenario is the equivalent of the accepting a return of an unused block from a member and checking out an application from another member for a block of the same size. Clearly if the recipient has never been allocated a block of addresses the initial IP resource application fee applies as part of the standard APNIC fee structure.
Other thoughts ==== So what about Section 5, Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal?
I think Section 5.1, Advantages in both prop-050 and prop-067 say pretty much the same thing.
The Disadvantages section of prop-050 has had eighteen months to evolve and while prop-063 claims there are no disadvantages to that proposal, the points raised in prop-050 could equally be applied to prop-063.
Where to from here? ====
I'd like to see four things happen:
1) I'd like the authors of prop-050 and prop-063 to look at each others proposal and discuss with each other and the rest of us on this list the things they can agree on which could be in a unified proposal.
2) If there are fundamental differences in what they want to see happen then if they can identify those then that would help this community see what needs to be worked on.
3) If we can get the above points sorted out, are there members in the community who have other views that they want considered before Manila?
4) Try to table a document that synthesizes that consensus at APNIC 27.

< sig co-chair hat = off >
prop-050 states:
Transfer fees:
There is no equivalent in prop-067.
because the EC sets fees, not the address policy wg.
It seems to me that this is where the fundamental difference between the two proposals lies
maybe. i have a slightly different point of view. as pfs seems to be off somewhere, how unusual, i am speaking for myself, not for both authors.
to me, the critical differences are as follows:
o the community expressed concern about routing table size. prop-067 addresses that directly by following current allocation size policy and not allowing slicing stuff down to /24s. and current allocation size policy is where such changes should be addressed.
o the community asked that use of the space be justified. prop-067 explicitly calls that out.
o folk kept asking about inter-region transfer. prop-067 allows it and specifically makes sure it follows apnic and the other rir's policies.
randy

On 15/01/2009, at 12:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
< sig co-chair hat = off >
prop-050 states:
Transfer fees:
There is no equivalent in prop-067.
because the EC sets fees, not the address policy wg.
It seems to me that this is where the fundamental difference between the two proposals lies
maybe. i have a slightly different point of view. as pfs seems to be off somewhere, how unusual, i am speaking for myself, not for both authors.
to me, the critical differences are as follows:
o the community expressed concern about routing table size. prop-067 addresses that directly by following current allocation size policy and not allowing slicing stuff down to /24s. and current allocation size policy is where such changes should be addressed.
Given that current allocation size policy has little, if any, relationship to what appears in the routing table (see http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2004-05-01-allocation-vs-announcement.p... for a detailed analysis of this) it would disagree that such a measure would "improve" the prospects of inflation of the BGP routing table. A deeper analysis of the trends in the routing system as they relate to the projections as they relate to the size of the routing table and a consideration of the metrics of the underlying drivers of the Internet's growth would show that this is not a significant factor, in my personal opinion.
o the community asked that use of the space be justified. prop-067 explicitly calls that out.
As author of the proposal, I carefully followed the comments in the presentations to prop-50 in the Policy SIG meetings and the discussion on the mailing list and I recollect no specific comment that reflects this concern as a barrier to achieving consensus. I do not agree that this was an expressed concern of the community, but if you can provide specific references, in the APNIC Policy SIG mailing list or in the APNIC Policy SIG meeting archives, that would help.
In addition,as this was a topic that evidently generated some level of discussion in the ARIN and RIPE policy fora in recent months, I have written an extended justification why this form of RIR-imposed constraint of "justification" was entirely inappropriate and ineffectual in terms of outcomes in terms of coherence and integrity of the address registry function. This extended commentary is at http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2008-11/transfers.html for those folk who are interested in this aspect of application of constraints in a trading environment.
o folk kept asking about inter-region transfer. prop-067 allows it and specifically makes sure it follows apnic and the other rir's policies.
I am personally of the view that that this should not be bundled up into a single proposal, and should be a topic of a distinct consideration by the SIG, so I have submitted a policy that specifically relates to other RIRs and to the NIRs in the APNIC region, for consideration at the forthcoming Policy SIG meeting. I personally believe that the consideration for NIRs should be explicitly encompassed in such a framework, and have done so in this policy proposal.
Geoff Huston
Activity Summary
- 5430 days inactive
- 5430 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 3 participants
- 2 comments