Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Kind Regards,
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
1. 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.
2. Objective of policy change -------------------------------------------------------
Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
3. 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.
4. 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.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644
5. Advantages / Disadvantages -------------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
- 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.
Disadvantages:
none.
6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None
7. References -------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
Attachments:
- 00.txt (text/plain — 3.8 KB)
I support prop-118, but note that contrary to the proposal text, Lacnic has allowed intra-regional transfers since March 14, 2016.
Regards, Mike Burns
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of chku Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:14 AM To: sig-policy sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Kind Regards,
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
1. 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.
2. Objective of policy change -------------------------------------------------------
Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff.
3. 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.
4. 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.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644
5. Advantages / Disadvantages -------------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
- 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.
Disadvantages:
none.
6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None
7. References -------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
Dear APNIC Sec,
Can you share some stats:
- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months? - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation? - How many transfer request you are receiving every week? - How long does it take to process a transfer request? - Does it create any administrative burden?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku chku@twnic.net.tw wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- 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?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Kind Regards,
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
- 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.
- 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.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- 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.
Disadvantages:
none.
- Impact on resource holders
None
- References
Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
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 Aftab,
For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a correspondence within two working days.
We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as soon as I have the information.
thanks,
George
On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Dear APNIC Sec,
Can you share some stats:
- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote:
Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017. Information about the proposal is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net <mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> 1. 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. 2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. 3. 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. 4. 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. source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - 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. Disadvantages: none. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None 7. References ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net <mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
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 Aftab,
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the last 12 months is 97.
Below is the breakdown of reasons: Fraud: 4 Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1 Recipient did not accept transfer: 6 Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23 No response from member: 30 Member requested to cancel transfer: 33
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
George
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
Hi Aftab,
For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a correspondence within two working days.
We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as soon as I have the information.
thanks,
George
On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Dear APNIC Sec,
Can you share some stats:
- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote:
Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" wasdiscussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 whichwill be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net <mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNICregion, 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 toprotect the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. 3. 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 demonstratetheir 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 toRIPE region.
4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transferincompatibility:
- APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resourcesto 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 receivingregion 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.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - 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. Disadvantages: none. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None 7. References ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net <mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Thanks George for the details.
So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo george@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the last 12 months is 97.
Below is the breakdown of reasons: Fraud: 4 Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1 Recipient did not accept transfer: 6 Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23 No response from member: 30 Member requested to cancel transfer: 33
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
George
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
Hi Aftab,
For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a correspondence within two working days.
We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as soon as I have the information.
thanks,
George
On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Dear APNIC Sec,
Can you share some stats:
- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote:
Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" wasdiscussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 whichwill be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net <mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNICregion, 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 notcoming
from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended toprotect the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. 3. 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 demonstratetheir 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) andresource
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 toRIPE region.
4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transferincompatibility:
- APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resourcesto 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 receivingregion 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.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - Harmonisation with RIPE region. - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and betweenAPNIC
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. Disadvantages: none. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None 7. References ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net <mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Aftab:
I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 15:35 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks George for the details.
So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo george@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the last 12 months is 97.
Below is the breakdown of reasons: Fraud: 4 Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1 Recipient did not accept transfer: 6 Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23 No response from member: 30 Member requested to cancel transfer: 33
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
George
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
Hi Aftab,
For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a correspondence within two working days.
We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as soon as I have the information.
thanks,
George
On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Dear APNIC Sec,
Can you share some stats:
- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote:
Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" wasdiscussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 whichwill be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net <mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNICregion, 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 ordcerto
enable further growth in their network, since the space is notcoming
from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended toprotect the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------------------------- RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even forfirst
allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstratetheir 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) andresource
request from AFRINIC based on needs. LACNIC, no transfers, need based request. Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIRtransfer
policies, ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need"policy
from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN toRIPE region.
4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transferincompatibility:
- APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resourcesto 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 receivingregion 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.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - Harmonisation with RIPE region. - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and betweenAPNIC
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. Disadvantages: none. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None 7. References ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net <mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
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
I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion.
If the data from APNIC Sec can't help you to make up your mind then there is nothing I can do. The information was good enough for me.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 15:35 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks George for the details.
So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo george@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the last 12 months is 97.
Below is the breakdown of reasons: Fraud: 4 Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1 Recipient did not accept transfer: 6 Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23 No response from member: 30 Member requested to cancel transfer: 33
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
George
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
Hi Aftab,
For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a correspondence within two working days.
We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you
as
soon as I have the information.
thanks,
George
On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Dear APNIC Sec,
Can you share some stats:
- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote:
Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" wasdiscussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 whichwill be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net <mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNICregion, 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 ordcerto
enable further growth in their network, since the space is notcoming
from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended toprotect the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------------------------- RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even forfirst
allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstratetheir 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) andresource
request from AFRINIC based on needs. LACNIC, no transfers, need based request. Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIRtransfer
policies, ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need"policy
from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN toRIPE region.
4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transferincompatibility:
- APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resourcesto 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 receivingregion to have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to
the
APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resourceswithin 5 years.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - Harmonisation with RIPE region. - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and betweenAPNIC
and RIPE. - maintains a compatibility with ARIN. - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected basedon
potentially badly documented needs. - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff. Disadvantages: none. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None 7. References ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net <mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy
* _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
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
--
Kind regards. Lu
--
Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
My reads to the data shows exact needs for the policy.
So don't blame data.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 16:03 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion.
If the data from APNIC Sec can't help you to make up your mind then there is nothing I can do. The information was good enough for me.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 15:35 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks George for the details.
So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo george@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the last 12 months is 97.
Below is the breakdown of reasons: Fraud: 4 Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1 Recipient did not accept transfer: 6 Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23 No response from member: 30 Member requested to cancel transfer: 33
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
George
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
Hi Aftab,
For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a correspondence within two working days.
We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you
as
soon as I have the information.
thanks,
George
On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Dear APNIC Sec,
Can you share some stats:
- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote:
Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" wasdiscussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 whichwill be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net <mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNICregion, the recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend to transfer.
Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this inordcer to
enable further growth in their network, since the space is notcoming
from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended toprotect the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.
2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------------------------- RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even forfirst
allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstratetheir 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) andresource
request from AFRINIC based on needs. LACNIC, no transfers, need based request. Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIRtransfer
policies, ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need"policy
from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN toRIPE region.
4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transferincompatibility:
- APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resourcesto 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 receivingregion to have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to
the
APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resourceswithin 5 years.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - Harmonisation with RIPE region. - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and betweenAPNIC
and RIPE. - maintains a compatibility with ARIN. - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected basedon
potentially badly documented needs. - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff. Disadvantages: none. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None 7. References ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net <mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy
* _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
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
--
Kind regards. Lu
--
Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
*Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1*
Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion after reading the data.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 13:04 Lu Heng h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
My reads to the data shows exact needs for the policy.
So don't blame data.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 16:03 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion.
If the data from APNIC Sec can't help you to make up your mind then there is nothing I can do. The information was good enough for me.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 15:35 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks George for the details.
So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo george@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the last 12 months is 97.
Below is the breakdown of reasons: Fraud: 4 Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1 Recipient did not accept transfer: 6 Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23 No response from member: 30 Member requested to cancel transfer: 33
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
George
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
Hi Aftab,
For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a correspondence within two working days.
We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to
you as
soon as I have the information.
thanks,
George
On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > Dear APNIC Sec, > > Can you share some stats: > > - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months? > - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation? > - How many transfer request you are receiving every week? > - How long does it take to process a transfer request? > - Does it create any administrative burden? > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw > mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote: > > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was > discussed at > APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44
which
> will > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 > September > 2017. > > Information about the proposal is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > - 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? > > Please find the text of the proposal below. > > Kind Regards, > > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: David Hilario > d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net > mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net > > > 1. 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. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. > Ease some administration on APNIC staff. > > > 3. 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. > > > 4. 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. > > source: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Advantages: > > - 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. > > Disadvantages: > > none. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ------------------------------------------------------- > None > > > 7. References > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy
> * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > -- > Best Wishes, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > * 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 >
-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
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
--
Kind regards. Lu
--
Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
--
Kind regards. Lu
--
Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
Exactly, and I appreciate your respect instead of merely blaming my perusal of data.
There are 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters for completing a transfer request, with 158 request, which means in total 700-800 emails can be saved for no reason.
The aim of the policy is to save unnecessary administrative burden for both members as well as APNIC staff. If a need test is needed to make sure that space is fully utilized, then we spend 800 emails which would only be found out to be less than 1% of request that will fail such test. In this sense why do we need such a test in the first place?
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 16:08 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
*Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1*
Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion after reading the data.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 13:04 Lu Heng h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
My reads to the data shows exact needs for the policy.
So don't blame data.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 16:03 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think George's data can leads your conclusion.
If the data from APNIC Sec can't help you to make up your mind then there is nothing I can do. The information was good enough for me.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 15:35 Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks George for the details.
So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo george@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the last 12 months is 97.
Below is the breakdown of reasons: Fraud: 4 Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1 Recipient did not accept transfer: 6 Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23 No response from member: 30 Member requested to cancel transfer: 33
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
George
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote: > Hi Aftab, > > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a > correspondence within two working days. > > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as > soon as I have the information. > > thanks, > > George > > > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: >> Dear APNIC Sec, >> >> Can you share some stats: >> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months? >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation? >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week? >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request? >> - Does it create any administrative burden? >> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw >> mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote: >> >> Dear SIG members >> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was >> discussed at >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus. >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which >> will >> be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 >> September >> 2017. >> >> Information about the proposal is available from: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 >> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >> >> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? >> - 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? >> >> Please find the text of the proposal below. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Proposer: David Hilario >> d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net >> mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net >> >> >> 1. 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. >> >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. >> Ease some administration on APNIC staff. >> >> >> 3. 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. >> >> >> 4. 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. >> >> source: >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 >> >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Advantages: >> >> - 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. >> >> Disadvantages: >> >> none. >> >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> None >> >> >> 7. References >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sig-policy-chair mailing list >> Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> -- >> Best Wishes, >> >> Aftab A. Siddiqui >> >> >> * 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 >>
-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
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
--
Kind regards. Lu
--
Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
--
Kind regards. Lu
--
Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
Hi,
On 23 August 2017 at 10:34, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks George for the details.
So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist.
The policy is not trying to fix a "problem", it is trying to simplify things and lighten the administrative burden in the process.
We tend to amass a lot of procedures and policies that stick around simply because "that's how we always have done it". Over time things become just a bit anachronistic.
Need base was intended for the purpose of slowing the exhaustion of the global IP pool, while we prepare for the replacement protocol... and somehow we submitted that one to stricter distribution from day one and it is currently still trying to recover.
Need demonstration was never intended to prevent IPv4 holders from exchanging IPs between each other, keeping the need based purpose on transfers is actually difficult to justify.
Prevent speculators and hoarders? Organisations with large pockets can do this already, need base can justify almost any sizes in the world of VPS.
We are only restricting smaller organisations willing to acquire resources in order try to have enough IPv4 space to cover their future needs based on what they can afford today. While larger organisations have no problem forking out large amount of money and can justify any sizes really.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo george@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you.
Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the last 12 months is 97.
Below is the breakdown of reasons: Fraud: 4
Good news they that they were caught.
Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1
Interesting number. Was it a "could not demonstrate any need?", or "a specific need for a specific transfer size?" I would guess it is the second option, specific need for specific transfer size.
Recipient did not accept transfer: 6
That category is odd, I know APNIC cannot give details of individual case, but why would a recipient be rejecting a transfer that they somehow initiated to begin with.
Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
Removing the need base in transfer would even simplify those, you can do an M&A provide lots of sensitive confidential information to a third party, or simply do a transfer of the resources.
Anyone who has been involved in an M&A would know that it involves an enormous amount of work and lots of extremely sensitive information that often is not really appropriate to share with any external parties.
No response from member: 30 Member requested to cancel transfer: 33
You still have 63 cancelled transfers for whatever reason, if that is due to the administrative burden put on the offering and receiving party, it is then a big waste of time for all involved, LIRs and RIR. If the "no need base" can help to lower the amount of cases that are simply given up, then the policy would have had an impact.
You also have non quantifiables, such as "Requested pre-approval evaluation", got /19 pre-approved but was aiming for /18 or higher.
So the Data is not really demonstrating the futility of the proposal, just showing there are issues with the current system and some tweaking of the current policies is needed.
As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy.
George
On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote:
Hi Aftab,
For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a correspondence within two working days.
We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as soon as I have the information.
thanks,
George
On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Dear APNIC Sec,
Can you share some stats:
- How many transfers request denied in last 12 months?
- How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation?
- How many transfer request you are receiving every week?
- How long does it take to process a transfer request?
- Does it create any administrative burden?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote:
Dear SIG members The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" wasdiscussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 whichwill be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: - Do you support or oppose the proposal? - 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? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs ------------------------------------------------------- prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region ------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net <mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> 1. Problem statement ------------------------------------------------------- Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNICregion, 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 ordcerto 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.
2. Objective of policy change ------------------------------------------------------- Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. Ease some administration on APNIC staff. 3. Situation in other regions ------------------------------------------------------- RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even forfirst 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) andresource request from AFRINIC based on needs.
LACNIC, no transfers, need based request. Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIRtransfer 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.
4. Proposed policy solution ------------------------------------------------------- Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transferincompatibility:
- APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resourcesto 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 receivingregion 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.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ------------------------------------------------------- Advantages: - Harmonisation with RIPE region. - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and betweenAPNIC 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.
Disadvantages: none. 6. Impact on resource holders ------------------------------------------------------- None 7. References ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net <mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
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-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region.
APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and only requires clarification to ensure correct implementation, should the proposal reach consensus.
These questions refer to the first bullet point in Section 4 'Proposed policy solution'.
- In that bullet point; "to its service region" seems to refer to recipients of inter-region transfers. Can you be specific about which transfers this proposal affects? Do you intend for the policy to also apply to transfers within the regional, including those between APNIC and NIR account holders?
- That bullet point requires transfers to "comply with the policies relating to transfers within its service region". Which region are you referring to? The APNIC region, or the counterpart region in an inter-RIR transfer? I think I understand your intention, but the current text seems to require transfers to comply with existing policy.
We would 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 24/8/17, 13:57, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of David Hilario" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> wrote:
Hi,
On 23 August 2017 at 10:34, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote: > Thanks George for the details. > > So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist. >
The policy is not trying to fix a "problem", it is trying to simplify things and lighten the administrative burden in the process.
We tend to amass a lot of procedures and policies that stick around simply because "that's how we always have done it". Over time things become just a bit anachronistic.
Need base was intended for the purpose of slowing the exhaustion of the global IP pool, while we prepare for the replacement protocol... and somehow we submitted that one to stricter distribution from day one and it is currently still trying to recover.
Need demonstration was never intended to prevent IPv4 holders from exchanging IPs between each other, keeping the need based purpose on transfers is actually difficult to justify.
Prevent speculators and hoarders? Organisations with large pockets can do this already, need base can justify almost any sizes in the world of VPS.
We are only restricting smaller organisations willing to acquire resources in order try to have enough IPv4 space to cover their future needs based on what they can afford today. While larger organisations have no problem forking out large amount of money and can justify any sizes really.
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo george@apnic.net wrote: >> >> Hi Aftab, >> >> Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you. >> >> Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the >> last 12 months is 97. >> >> Below is the breakdown of reasons: >> Fraud: 4
Good news they that they were caught.
>> Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1
Interesting number. Was it a "could not demonstrate any need?", or "a specific need for a specific transfer size?" I would guess it is the second option, specific need for specific transfer size.
>> Recipient did not accept transfer: 6
That category is odd, I know APNIC cannot give details of individual case, but why would a recipient be rejecting a transfer that they somehow initiated to begin with.
>> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23
Removing the need base in transfer would even simplify those, you can do an M&A provide lots of sensitive confidential information to a third party, or simply do a transfer of the resources.
Anyone who has been involved in an M&A would know that it involves an enormous amount of work and lots of extremely sensitive information that often is not really appropriate to share with any external parties.
>> No response from member: 30 >> Member requested to cancel transfer: 33 >>
You still have 63 cancelled transfers for whatever reason, if that is due to the administrative burden put on the offering and receiving party, it is then a big waste of time for all involved, LIRs and RIR. If the "no need base" can help to lower the amount of cases that are simply given up, then the policy would have had an impact.
You also have non quantifiables, such as "Requested pre-approval evaluation", got /19 pre-approved but was aiming for /18 or higher.
So the Data is not really demonstrating the futility of the proposal, just showing there are issues with the current system and some tweaking of the current policies is needed.
>> As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part >> of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy. >> >> >> George >> >> >> On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote: >> > Hi Aftab, >> > >> > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 >> > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. >> > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to >> > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a >> > correspondence within two working days. >> > >> > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as >> > soon as I have the information. >> > >> > thanks, >> > >> > George >> > >> > >> > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: >> >> Dear APNIC Sec, >> >> >> >> Can you share some stats: >> >> >> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months? >> >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation? >> >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week? >> >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request? >> >> - Does it create any administrative burden? >> >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw >> >> mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear SIG members >> >> >> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was >> >> discussed at >> >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus. >> >> >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which >> >> will >> >> be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 >> >> September >> >> 2017. >> >> >> >> Information about the proposal is available from: >> >> >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 >> >> >> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >> >> >> >> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? >> >> - 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? >> >> >> >> Please find the text of the proposal below. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Proposer: David Hilario >> >> d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net >> >> mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. >> >> Ease some administration on APNIC staff. >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. 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. >> >> >> >> source: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 >> >> >> >> >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Advantages: >> >> >> >> - 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. >> >> >> >> Disadvantages: >> >> >> >> none. >> >> >> >> >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> None >> >> >> >> >> >> 7. References >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Sig-policy-chair mailing list >> >> Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net >> >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> >> * >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> sig-policy mailing list >> >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >> >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best Wishes, >> >> >> >> Aftab A. Siddiqui >> >> >> >> >> >> * 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 >> >> > > -- > Best Wishes, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > * 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
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-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region.
APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and only requires clarification to ensure correct implementation, should the proposal reach consensus.
These questions refer to the first bullet point in Section 4 'Proposed policy solution'.
- In that bullet point; "to its service region" seems to refer to recipients of inter-region transfers. Can you be specific about which transfers this proposal affects? Do you intend for the policy to also apply to transfers within the regional, including those between APNIC and NIR account holders?
As in any transfer handled by APNIC. If the recipient is handled by APNIC, APNIC will not ask for detailed addressing plan and justification plan. If the recipient is handled by another RIR or NIR, APNIC will not ask for detailed addressing plan and justification plan.
Unless it is required to do so to comply with the other offering registry's policies.
- That bullet point requires transfers to "comply with the policies relating to transfers within its service region". Which region are you referring to? The APNIC region, or the counterpart region in an inter-RIR transfer? I think I understand your intention, but the current text seems to require transfers to comply with existing policy.
APNIC region. Basically, that the recipient is able to receive address space under the current APNIC policies, recipient is representing a legal entity that is having a membership with APNIC or an NIR.
We would 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 24/8/17, 13:57, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of David Hilario" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> wrote:
Hi, On 23 August 2017 at 10:34, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks George for the details. > > So this policy is trying to solve the problems which don't exist. > The policy is not trying to fix a "problem", it is trying to simplify things and lighten the administrative burden in the process. We tend to amass a lot of procedures and policies that stick around simply because "that's how we always have done it". Over time things become just a bit anachronistic. Need base was intended for the purpose of slowing the exhaustion of the global IP pool, while we prepare for the replacement protocol... and somehow we submitted that one to stricter distribution from day one and it is currently still trying to recover. Need demonstration was never intended to prevent IPv4 holders from exchanging IPs between each other, keeping the need based purpose on transfers is actually difficult to justify. Prevent speculators and hoarders? Organisations with large pockets can do this already, need base can justify almost any sizes in the world of VPS. We are only restricting smaller organisations willing to acquire resources in order try to have enough IPv4 space to cover their future needs based on what they can afford today. While larger organisations have no problem forking out large amount of money and can justify any sizes really. > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 at 12:28 George Kuo <george@apnic.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Aftab, >> >> Thanks for your patience. I now have more information for you. >> >> Total number of IPv4 market transfers that did not get completed in the >> last 12 months is 97. >> >> Below is the breakdown of reasons: >> Fraud: 4 Good news they that they were caught. >> Recipient could not demonstrate needs: 1 Interesting number. Was it a "could not demonstrate any need?", or "a specific need for a specific transfer size?" I would guess it is the second option, specific need for specific transfer size. >> Recipient did not accept transfer: 6 That category is odd, I know APNIC cannot give details of individual case, but why would a recipient be rejecting a transfer that they somehow initiated to begin with. >> Requests corrected as M&A transfer: 23 Removing the need base in transfer would even simplify those, you can do an M&A provide lots of sensitive confidential information to a third party, or simply do a transfer of the resources. Anyone who has been involved in an M&A would know that it involves an enormous amount of work and lots of extremely sensitive information that often is not really appropriate to share with any external parties. >> No response from member: 30 >> Member requested to cancel transfer: 33 >> You still have 63 cancelled transfers for whatever reason, if that is due to the administrative burden put on the offering and receiving party, it is then a big waste of time for all involved, LIRs and RIR. If the "no need base" can help to lower the amount of cases that are simply given up, then the policy would have had an impact. You also have non quantifiables, such as "Requested pre-approval evaluation", got /19 pre-approved but was aiming for /18 or higher. So the Data is not really demonstrating the futility of the proposal, just showing there are issues with the current system and some tweaking of the current policies is needed. >> As far as administration of these requests is concerned, it's just part >> of hostmasters routines required by the APNIC policy. >> >> >> George >> >> >> On 18/8/17 6:48 pm, George Kuo wrote: >> > Hi Aftab, >> > >> > For 2017, the secretariat has processed 158 market transfers as of 15 >> > August. So, this is roughly about 5 transfer requests a week. >> > On average, it takes about 4-5 responses from APNIC hostmasters to >> > complete a transfer request. We have a procedure to respond to a >> > correspondence within two working days. >> > >> > We are getting the rest of the answers for you. I'll come back to you as >> > soon as I have the information. >> > >> > thanks, >> > >> > George >> > >> > >> > On 18/8/17 3:29 pm, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: >> >> Dear APNIC Sec, >> >> >> >> Can you share some stats: >> >> >> >> - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months? >> >> - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation? >> >> - How many transfer request you are receiving every week? >> >> - How long does it take to process a transfer request? >> >> - Does it create any administrative burden? >> >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku <chku@twnic.net.tw >> >> <mailto:chku@twnic.net.tw>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear SIG members >> >> >> >> The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was >> >> discussed at >> >> APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus. >> >> >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which >> >> will >> >> be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 >> >> September >> >> 2017. >> >> >> >> Information about the proposal is available from: >> >> >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 >> >> >> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >> >> >> >> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? >> >> - 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? >> >> >> >> Please find the text of the proposal below. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Proposer: David Hilario >> >> d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net >> >> <mailto:d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. >> >> Ease some administration on APNIC staff. >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. 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. >> >> >> >> source: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 >> >> >> >> >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Advantages: >> >> >> >> - 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. >> >> >> >> Disadvantages: >> >> >> >> none. >> >> >> >> >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> None >> >> >> >> >> >> 7. References >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Sig-policy-chair mailing list >> >> Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net <mailto:Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net> >> >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> >> * >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> sig-policy mailing list >> >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >> >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best Wishes, >> >> >> >> Aftab A. Siddiqui >> >> >> >> >> >> * 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 >> >> > > -- > Best Wishes, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > * 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
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 Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-118, based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
Mixed opinions were expressed on this proposal.
Some participants were against the entire proposal. OTOH, there were some who supported the need to remove needs based justification within the APNIC region, while against justifying 50% use of transfer block within 5 years.
Below are details of different opinions expressed.
Concerns/Opposing comments: * Strong concern expressed over impact on the transfer with ARIN region. If transfer with ARIN will not be allowed by removing needs based criteria, cannot support this proposal.(*)
(*) Additional Note: It is acknowledged that RIPE region transfer with ARIN with the same criteria as prop-118. It should resolve this concern if there is an explicit confirmation from ARIN that the same approach will be applicable to APNIC region
* IP address should be distributed to those who need it, therefore against removing needs based criteria
* Justifying 50% use within 5 years do not seem like meaningful criteria. It is hard for applicants to speculate the needs for 5 years (too long ahead) and it is also hard to evaluate the application. It may not be a meaningful check despite the time and effort it takes for both applicant and registry.
* Concern expressed over abuse in the use of address space if both this proposal and prop-119 are adopted
Supportive Comment: * If the role of registry is to be a record keeper in transfers of resources, and both the source and recipient both agree, we can remove needs based criteria
Best Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki Policy Working Group Japan Open Policy Forum
2017-08-09 15:13 GMT+09:00 chku chku@twnic.net.tw:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- 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?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Kind Regards,
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
- 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.
- 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.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- 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.
Disadvantages:
none.
- Impact on resource holders
None
- References
Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
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
Dear Satoru,
Thank you for reporting back those views.
I will try to clarify where I can.
On 8 September 2017 at 09:32, Satoru Tsurumaki satoru.tsurumaki@g.softbank.co.jp wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Policy Working Group in Japan.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-118, based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
Mixed opinions were expressed on this proposal.
Some participants were against the entire proposal. OTOH, there were some who supported the need to remove needs based justification within the APNIC region, while against justifying 50% use of transfer block within 5 years.
Below are details of different opinions expressed.
Concerns/Opposing comments:
- Strong concern expressed over impact on the transfer with ARIN region.
If transfer with ARIN will not be allowed by removing needs based criteria, cannot support this proposal.(*)
(*) Additional Note: It is acknowledged that RIPE region transfer with ARIN with the same criteria as prop-118. It should resolve this concern if there is an explicit confirmation from ARIN that the same approach will be applicable to APNIC region
The whole idea is indeed to keep the compatibility working with ARIN.
- IP address should be distributed to those who need it, therefore
against removing needs based criteria
Having a justification based evaluation in transfer does unfortunately not help the ones who need IP address but have no money. Those with money do not transfer unless they have a need for that space, it is a costly and lengthy process. That is the situation at the moment.
The need base evaluation is an administrative hurdle, it does not ensures fair re-distribution of address space. This policy is trying to remove that step from the process.
- Justifying 50% use within 5 years do not seem like meaningful
criteria. It is hard for applicants to speculate the needs for 5 years (too long ahead) and it is also hard to evaluate the application. It may not be a meaningful check despite the time and effort it takes for both applicant and registry.
Plans for the coming 5 years, if you today make a transfer based on a hard deployment plan for the coming 12 months, you can still justify your transfer with that. If you happen to find larger amount than your needs for the coming 12 months, you can justify with plans for up to 5 years. It is mainly to remain compatible with ARIN, if they ever drop those requirements, then it is not applied anymore.
- Concern expressed over abuse in the use of address space if both
this proposal and prop-119 are adopted
What type of abuse?
Supportive Comment:
- If the role of registry is to be a record keeper in transfers of
resources, and both the source and recipient both agree, we can remove needs based criteria
Best Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki Policy Working Group Japan Open Policy Forum
2017-08-09 15:13 GMT+09:00 chku chku@twnic.net.tw:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September 2017.
Information about the proposal is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- 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?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Kind Regards,
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region
Proposer: David Hilario d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net
- 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.
- 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.
source: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- 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.
Disadvantages:
none.
- Impact on resource holders
None
- References
Sig-policy-chair mailing list Sig-policy-chair@apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
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
- 2213 days inactive
- 2213 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 8 participants
- 15 comments