j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
If we don't have policy to make the unofficial transfer valid, the investment & return on address trading will be less profitable and more risky, there for less attractive.
I think right now the temptation for request more addresses is mainly for more convenience, not for stock and sell(transfer). The more addresses they have, the less time they have to think about sub-allocation and less frequent to make request from RIR.
But if we have a transfer policy in effect right now, that desire may be change.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Leo Vegoda" firstname.lastname@example.org To: "Terence Zhang Yinghao" email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
On 19/03/2009 11:09, "Terence Zhang Yinghao" email@example.com wrote:
a transfer policy implicitly recognizes a market of tranfer and attaches a potential 'value' to IP addresses,
Is the problem that the value is recognised or that the value exists? I expect the value exists whether we recognise it or not. What are the consequences to ignoring it?
Vaule do exists, but not market, and we should not encourage it.
We cannot know that there is no market. It is the nature of unofficial markets to remain (somewhat) hidden.
which may attract some businesses to apply for more IP addresses than their actual need, there for speed up the IPv4 addresses consumption.
I am sure that this already happens. I expect that the APNIC and NIR staff evaluating requests for IPv4 address space are experienced at looking for a factual justification for a request.
Do you have evidence when you make that conclusion? FYI. there are about 298 million internet user in China main land, we only have about 181 million IPv4 addresses. Any way, don't divert the discussion to another way.
I don't think I am diverting the discussion to another way. I agree with you that there is a temptation to ask for more than is necessary because I have seen requests doing just this while I worked at another RIR. A core part of the NIR's and the RIR's job is to make sure that there is a valid documented justification for assignments or allocations.
My argument is that the temptation existed before this policy proposal and will still exist once the discussion is completed. A transfer policy will not change the desire for more addresses than a network needs, nor will it change the NIR's and RIR's responsibilities as regards request evaluations.
More to the point, I feel that policies deal with transfer will be easily involved with financial and even legal issues, and to address those issues may be very complex.
Do those financial and legal issues go away if the implicit value of IPv4 addresses is not recognised in APNIC policy? I suspect you just trade one set of financial and legal issues for another.
I specificly talk about those issues raised in the mailling list regarding the transfer proposal, I also say that to address those issues may be very complex. So I would suggest we only have transfer policy when it's absolutely neccessary.
Can you please define "absolutely necessary"?
I don't assume those issues will go away.
I am also sure that they won't.