Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers - passed to mailing li
prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
This proposal was presented at the APNIC 24 Policy SIG. The proposer
did not seek a consensus call at the meeting. The proposal is being
passed to the the mailing list for further development by the community
and the proposal, as refined, will be submitted to APNIC 25.
The proposal is for APNIC to process IPv4 address transfer requests
for address blocks that meet a number of criteria.
Conditions on the IPv4 address block:
- Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefix
may be transferred.
- The address block must be in the range of addresses administered
by APNIC, either as part of a /8 address block assigned by the
IANA to APNIC, or as part of a historically-assigned address
block now administered by APNIC.
- The address block must be allocated or assigned to a current
APNIC account holder.
- The address block will be subject to all current APNIC policies
from the time of transfer. This includes address blocks
previously considered to be "historical".
Conditions on source of the transfer:
- The source entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
- The source entity must be the currently registered holder of the
IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
the status of those resources.
- The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
address allocations or assignments from APNIC for a period of 24
months after the transfer.
- In making any future IPv4 address resource requests to APNIC,
for as long as IPv4 address resources are available from APNIC,
following the expiration of this 24 month ineligibility
period, the source will be required to document the reasons for
the IPv4 address resource allocation.
Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
- The recipient entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
- The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be
subject to current APNIC policies. In particular, in any
subsequent APNIC IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient
will be required to account for all IPv4 address space held,
including all transferred resources.
- APNIC fees payable by the recipient will be assessed on the
basis of all resources held.
Discussion at APNIC 24
Questions were raised regarding:
- why this policy would not extend to members of NIRs?
The proposer responded that the NIRs had not been consulted on this
proposal at that time. This remains an open issue and the issues
relating to transfers and NIRs does need further consideration.
It was mentioned that JPNIC is planning a special working group on
considering address transfer issues and management of historical
address holdings and intended to report in this activity at APNIC 25.
- why this did not apply to inter-RIR transfers?
The proposer responded that this was not being proposed as a globally
coordinated policy, and was intended to be considered in the scope of
It was suggested that the proposal be more open-ended and propose that
APNIC would allow transfers with other RIRs that also allowed such
- what can we do to make this marketplace more transparent, more fair,
more open and most beneficial to the Internet users and operators in
The proposer responded that one of the ways of showing what good
behaviour in a market was to operate a market place in an exemplary
fashion and lead by example rather than by exhortation.
- why does this not apply to historical resource holdings?
It was noted that there exists a process within the APNIC procedural
framework to convert historical addresses to current, and this
proposal does not usurp or overrule such a policy. A disposer of an
historical address block would firstly need to convert the address to
a current holding before this transfer policy would be applicable.
- why is this proposal limited to address blocks equal to or larger than
The proposer responded that a /24 appears to be the smallest unit of
address space that we actually see as being an advertisable, useful
address block. This proposal makes that leap of faith and says the
minimum is a /24. It's certainly part and parcel of this process of
- do recipients of a transfer need to demonstrate need as per APNIC's
direct allocation and assignment policies?
The proposer indicated that as the proposal stood, the only point at
which the recipient has to demonstrate that particular requirement of
eligibility to me is at the point in time that they come back to APNIC
for a direct IPv4 allocation, in which case all of their holdings,
including those obtained by transfer, are then assessed by the policy.
Following the discussion, there was clear support to continued
discussion of this proposal
It would be very helpful to hear your opinions on this proposal. Here
are some questions that may help start discussion:
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
- Should such a proposal be adopted prior to the anticipated point
of exhaustion of the IPv4 unallocated address pool?
- Are there risks in not adopting this policy, or something similar? Are
such risks unacceptable?
- Should transfers require qualification of the recipient to need to
demonstrate a need in the same fashion as a direct allocation or
- How should this relate to NIRs and members of NIRs? Are NIRs bound to
operate under asn APNIC transfer policy, if adopted by APNIC?
For more information on the policy proposal, see: