Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read: ___________________________
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block. ___________________________
Regards
Mike
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Bertrand Cherrier Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. To: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.commailto:yangpf6@126.com
1. Problem statement
-------------------------------------------------------
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
2. Objective of policy change
-------------------------------------------------------
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
3. Situation in other regions
-------------------------------------------------------
No such situation in other regions.
4. Proposed policy solution
-------------------------------------------------------
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-------------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-------------------------------------------------------
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
7. References
-------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards, Guangliang =========
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Gupta Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM To: Henderson Mike, Mr MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz Cc: mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nzmailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote: Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read: ___________________________
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block. ___________________________
Regards
Mike
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Bertrand Cherrier Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. To: sig-policy@apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.commailto:yangpf6@126.com
1. Problem statement
-------------------------------------------------------
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
2. Objective of policy change
-------------------------------------------------------
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
3. Situation in other regions
-------------------------------------------------------
No such situation in other regions.
4. Proposed policy solution
-------------------------------------------------------
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-------------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-------------------------------------------------------
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
7. References
------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Guangliang, How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr < MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block.
Regards
*Mike*
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. *To:* sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
- Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards, Guangliang ==========
From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM To: Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net Cc: Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz; mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang, How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.netmailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards, Guangliang =========
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Gupta Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM To: Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nzmailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208tel:+65%209855%201208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nzmailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote: Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read: ___________________________
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block. ___________________________
Regards
Mike
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Bertrand Cherrier Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. To: sig-policy@apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.commailto:yangpf6@126.com
1. Problem statement
-------------------------------------------------------
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
2. Objective of policy change
-------------------------------------------------------
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
3. Situation in other regions
-------------------------------------------------------
No such situation in other regions.
4. Proposed policy solution
-------------------------------------------------------
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-------------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-------------------------------------------------------
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
7. References
------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto: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.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- Best Wishes,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
we will vote to support this policy.
as a practical example, the organisation i work for will be affected by this policy.
the organisation (a mobile MVNO) acquired a business in 2016 with a /22 from the 103/8 range with the intention of offering fixed line services.
we are seeking to merge the purchased entity's /22 into our APNIC account.
if we do not do this, the details in APNIC whois for the purchased entity will soon be no longer valid.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
*From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM *To:* Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz; mailman_SIG-policy < sig-policy@apnic.net>
*Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang,
How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@ lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr < MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block.
Regards
*Mike*
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@ lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. *To:* sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
- Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
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
--
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
Dear Team,
As statistics suggest, M&A cases are hardly 2 to 3% of the total delegations. M&A are the routine business activities, and no one can predict when will it happen . I support the policy.
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink solutions Pvt. Ltd. +91-9227886001
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:38 PM, andrew khoo andrew.khoo@as136019.net wrote:
we will vote to support this policy.
as a practical example, the organisation i work for will be affected by this policy.
the organisation (a mobile MVNO) acquired a business in 2016 with a /22 from the 103/8 range with the intention of offering fixed line services.
we are seeking to merge the purchased entity's /22 into our APNIC account.
if we do not do this, the details in APNIC whois for the purchased entity will soon be no longer valid.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
*From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM *To:* Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz; mailman_SIG-policy < sig-policy@apnic.net>
*Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang,
How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr < MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block.
Regards
*Mike*
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. *To:* sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
- Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
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
--
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
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 have multiple clients who are going through M&A of smaller ISPs and now have resources they need to use but can't combine them under their membership and have to maintain a legal company just to hold the resources.
This could cost a couple of thousand dollars per year in Australia for ASIC fees, Annual Tax Returns and Accountant Fees.
I am considering advising clients to let the companies die, keep records of an internal transfer of assets (resources), and point lawyers at APNIC if they do not update the registry records.
In an M&A there is no need to justify the use of resources as they are already using them and will continue to do so under the original (whatever that is) justification. It is not the right of APNIC to interfere with a business lawfully carrying on its operations and I think the courts will agree. APNIC is a registry operator and record keeper. They are already drifting from their chartered purpose too much in my opinion and should be put back in their place.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego
LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:08 PM, andrew khoo andrew.khoo@as136019.net wrote:
we will vote to support this policy.
as a practical example, the organisation i work for will be affected by this policy.
the organisation (a mobile MVNO) acquired a business in 2016 with a /22 from the 103/8 range with the intention of offering fixed line services.
we are seeking to merge the purchased entity's /22 into our APNIC account.
if we do not do this, the details in APNIC whois for the purchased entity will soon be no longer valid.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
*From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM *To:* Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz; mailman_SIG-policy < sig-policy@apnic.net>
*Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang,
How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr < MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block.
Regards
*Mike*
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. *To:* sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
- Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
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
--
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
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
This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been enshrined in policy.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego
LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
*From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM *To:* Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz; mailman_SIG-policy < sig-policy@apnic.net> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang,
How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@ lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr < MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block.
Regards
*Mike*
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@ lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. *To:* sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
- Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
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
--
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 would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the distributed portion of 103/8.
I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 resources have been subject to one or more M&A transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in the number instances where the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
1. Stand up shell entity 2. Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block. 3. Merge shell entity into parent entity and M&A transfer block into parent’s holdings. 4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Owen
On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia wrote:
This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been enshrined in policy.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia http://eintellegonetworks.asia/ Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <> Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM To: Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> Cc: Sanjeev Gupta <sanjeev@dcs1.biz mailto:sanjeev@dcs1.biz>; mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang,
How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Gupta Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM To: Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz mailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 tel:+65%209855%201208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz mailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block. ___________________________
Regards
Mike
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Bertrand Cherrier Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. To: sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang yangpf6@126.com mailto:yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8 block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The community was not aware of the restriction when they received those resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment” should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
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 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 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
Owen,
Of course, there is the possibility (probability) of this, but that would be stupid as the costs of maintaining companies would exceed CGN or other methods to alleviate the need.
The issue here is that APNIC needs to be satisfied it is a real M&A, which should not be that hard to do.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego
LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Owen DeLong owen@delong.com wrote:
I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the distributed portion of 103/8.
I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 resources have been subject to one or more M&A transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in the number instances where the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
- Stand up shell entity
- Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block.
- Merge shell entity into parent entity and M&A transfer block into
parent’s holdings. 4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Owen
On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpolicy@ eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been enshrined in policy.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
*From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM *To:* Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz; mailman_SIG-policy < sig-policy@apnic.net> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang,
How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr < MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block.
Regards
*Mike*
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lis ts.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. *To:* sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
- Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
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
--
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
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
On Jan 31, 2018, at 10:09 , Skeeve Stevens skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia wrote:
Owen,
Of course, there is the possibility (probability) of this, but that would be stupid as the costs of maintaining companies would exceed CGN or other methods to alleviate the need.
Maintaining? Once you do the merge, there’s no need to maintain.
Standing up a shell company is pretty cheap and easy in most places. I’m sure there’s at least one country somewhere in the APNIC region where this is true. If there’s no stricture on M&A acquisitions of 103/8 space, not even a minimal time limit, then I would argue it’s pretty hard to distinguish this activity from “real M&A” on a policy basis. After all, a real company (albeit a shell company, this is very hard to detect) is applying for and receiving space and then “really” being “acquired” by the “independent” organization that spun it up in the first place. On paper it’s 100% legitimate normal business practice and it’s virtually impossible to distinguish this from (e.g. 3Com spinning off Palm and then later acquiring it, then spinning it off where it was eventually acquired by HP).
I agree that 5 years is way too long and exceeds the useful delay here, but I think that a 24 month waiting period after acquiring is not at all unreasonable.
Owen
The issue here is that APNIC needs to be satisfied it is a real M&A, which should not be that hard to do.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia http://eintellegonetworks.asia/ Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <> Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com mailto:owen@delong.com> wrote: I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the distributed portion of 103/8.
I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 resources have been subject to one or more M&A transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in the number instances where the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
- Stand up shell entity
- Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block.
- Merge shell entity into parent entity and M&A transfer block into parent’s holdings.
- Lather, rinse, repeat.
Owen
On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been enshrined in policy.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia http://eintellegonetworks.asia/ Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <> Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM To: Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> Cc: Sanjeev Gupta <sanjeev@dcs1.biz mailto:sanjeev@dcs1.biz>; mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang,
How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Gupta Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM To: Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz mailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 tel:+65%209855%201208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz mailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block. ___________________________
Regards
Mike
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Bertrand Cherrier Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. To: sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang yangpf6@126.com mailto:yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8 block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The community was not aware of the restriction when they received those resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment” should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
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 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hello Owen,
There is 1.86% of the delegations from 103/8 block have been transferred by M&A. Out of that, only 5 ranges transferred more than once.
There are 152 members acquired 103/8 ranges via M&A transfers. It is 1% of the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of that, 123 members received one range, 16 members received two ranges and 13 members received more two ranges.
Kind regards, Guangliang ==========
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com] Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM To: Skeeve Stevens skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia Cc: Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net; mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the distributed portion of 103/8.
I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 resources have been subject to one or more M&A transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in the number instances where the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
1. Stand up shell entity 2. Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block. 3. Merge shell entity into parent entity and M&A transfer block into parent’s holdings. 4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Owen
On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asiamailto:skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been enshrined in policy.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asiamailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asiahttp://eintellegonetworks.asia/ Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve Facebook: eintellegonetworkshttp://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellegohttps://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeevehttp://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profilehttps://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.netmailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards, Guangliang ==========
From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.commailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM To: Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.netmailto:gpan@apnic.net> Cc: Sanjeev Gupta <sanjeev@dcs1.bizmailto:sanjeev@dcs1.biz>; mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang, How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.netmailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards, Guangliang =========
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Gupta Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM To: Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nzmailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208tel:+65%209855%201208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nzmailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote: Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read: ___________________________
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block. ___________________________
Regards
Mike
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Bertrand Cherrier Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. To: sig-policy@apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.commailto:yangpf6@126.com
1. Problem statement
-------------------------------------------------------
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
2. Objective of policy change
-------------------------------------------------------
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
3. Situation in other regions
-------------------------------------------------------
No such situation in other regions.
4. Proposed policy solution
-------------------------------------------------------
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-------------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-------------------------------------------------------
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
7. References
------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto: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.netmailto: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.netmailto: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.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
With these statistics, I fail to see the problem that was being addressed as opposed to the problem is now causes by limiting the way people do their business.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego
LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hello Owen,
There is 1.86% of the delegations from 103/8 block have been transferred by M&A. Out of that, only 5 ranges transferred more than once.
There are 152 members acquired 103/8 ranges via M&A transfers. It is 1% of the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of that, 123 members received one range, 16 members received two ranges and 13 members received more two ranges.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
*From:* Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM *To:* Skeeve Stevens skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia *Cc:* Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net; mailman_SIG-policy < sig-policy@apnic.net> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the distributed portion of 103/8.
I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 resources have been subject
to one or more M&A transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in the number instances where
the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
1. Stand up shell entity 2. Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain103/8 block.
3. Merge shell entity into parent entity and M&Atransfer block into parent’s holdings.
4. Lather, rinse, repeat.Owen
On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpolicy@ eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been enshrined in policy.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect* - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd.
Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego
LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
*From:* Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM *To:* Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net *Cc:* Sanjeev Gupta sanjeev@dcs1.biz; mailman_SIG-policy < sig-policy@apnic.net> *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang,
How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan gpan@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@ lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Sanjeev Gupta *Sent:* Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM *To:* Henderson Mike, Mr MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz *Cc:* mailman_SIG-policy sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 <+65%209855%201208> http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr < MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block.
Regards
*Mike*
*From:* sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@ lists.apnic.net] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand Cherrier *Sent:* Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. *To:* sig-policy@apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang
yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in
the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep
- Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8
block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The
community was not aware of the restriction when they received those
resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to
transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered,
there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC
Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8)
which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment”
should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14
Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC
Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources
were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
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
--
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
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
Actually, I have to agree.
I’m pleasantly surprised by the statistics.
Owen
On Feb 1, 2018, at 07:11 , Skeeve Stevens skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia wrote:
With these statistics, I fail to see the problem that was being addressed as opposed to the problem is now causes by limiting the way people do their business.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd. Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia http://eintellegonetworks.asia/ Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve <> Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote: Hello Owen,
There is 1.86% of the delegations from 103/8 block have been transferred by M&A. Out of that, only 5 ranges transferred more than once.
There are 152 members acquired 103/8 ranges via M&A transfers. It is 1% of the total membership (includes members under NIRs). Out of that, 123 members received one range, 16 members received two ranges and 13 members received more two ranges.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com mailto:owen@delong.com] Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2018 3:00 AM To: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve%2Bsigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia> Cc: Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net>; mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
I would argue that 257 probably represents a significant fraction of the distributed portion of 103/8.
I would be interested if staff can answer what percentage of the issued 103/8 resources have been subject
to one or more M&A transfers since issuance. I’d be especially interested in the number instances where
the same entity has “acquired” more than entity that holds 103/8 block(s).
I am concerned that there could be an emerging pattern of:
1. Stand up shell entity 2. Subscribe shell entity to APNIC and obtain 103/8 block. 3. Merge shell entity into parent entity and M&A transfer block into parent’s holdings. 4. Lather, rinse, repeat.Owen
On Jan 31, 2018, at 08:47 , Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve+sigpolicy@eintellegonetworks.asia> wrote:
This number is so small in the scheme of things it should NOT have been enshrined in policy.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Founder & The Architect - eintellego Networks (Cambodia) Pte Ltd.
Email: skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.asia ; Web: eintellegonetworks.asia http://eintellegonetworks.asia/ Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; Skype: skeeve
Facebook: eintellegonetworks http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; Twitter: eintellego https://twitter.com/eintellego LinkedIn: /in/skeeve http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve https://keybase.io/skeeve
Elastic Fabrics - Elastic Engineers - Elastic ISPs - Elastic Enterprises
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Aftab,
The number of M&A transfers involved 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017 is 257.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
==========
From: Aftab Siddiqui [mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 8:49 PM To: Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> Cc: Sanjeev Gupta <sanjeev@dcs1.biz mailto:sanjeev@dcs1.biz>; mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Guangliang,
How many M&A were processed for 103/8 address block from 15 April 2011 to 14 Sep 2017.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 at 06:43 Guangliang Pan <gpan@apnic.net mailto:gpan@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sanjeev,
The number of delegations from 103/8 pool since 29 Jan 2013 (Five years count back from today) to 14 Sep 2017 is 10868. These are the delegations are not allowed to transfer as of today according to prop-116-v006.
Kind regards,
Guangliang
=========
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Gupta Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018 3:34 PM To: Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz mailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> Cc: mailman_SIG-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy [SECURITY=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi,
I see this as more of a "do not make policy retroactively". People who "bought" an "asset" in good faith should not be told it is worth different now.
I am amenable to changing the cut-off date in Prop-123 to the date it was sent to the Policy SIG, as that might have given warning to people the rules were changing.
APNIC Secretariat, how many transfers will be affected by Prop-123?
-- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 tel:+65%209855%201208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Henderson Mike, Mr <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz mailto:MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
Not supported
The proposal should in my opinion be amended to read:
Disadvantages:
None Completely negates the purpose of prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block. ___________________________
Regards
Mike
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Bertrand Cherrier Sent: Friday, 26 January 2018 4:28 p.m. To: sig-policy@apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 45 in Kathmandu, Nepal on Tuesday, 27 February 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-123
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/prop-123-v001.txt
prop-123-v001: Modify 103/8 IPv4 transfer policy
Proposer: Alex Yang yangpf6@126.com mailto:yangpf6@126.com
- Problem statement
Policy Proposal prop-116-v006: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block reached consensus at the APNIC 44 AMM on 14 Sep 2017. Since that APNIC has stopped all the IPv4 transfers from 103/8 block if the delegation date is less than 5 years.
However, some of the 103/8 ranges were delegated before 14 Sep 2017. Those resources should not be subjected to 5 years restriction. The community was not aware of the restriction when they received those resources, some of the resources have been transferred or planning to transfer. If APNIC is not allow those transfers to be registered, there will be underground transfers. This will cause incorrect APNIC Whois data.
- Objective of policy change
To keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
- Situation in other regions
No such situation in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
“Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under final /8 address block (103/8) which have not passed five years after its allocation/assignment” should only apply to those ranges were delegated from APNIC since 14 Sep 2017.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
- Allow APNIC to register those 103/8 transfers to keep the APNIC Whois data correct.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
Resource holders are allowed to transfer 103/8 ranges if the resources were delegated before 14 Sep 2017.
- References
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately.
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 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy 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 mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 1946 days inactive
- 1946 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 8 participants
- 14 comments