Leo Vegoda wrote:
Geoff, A small point on wording and a couple of questions. [...]APNIC will process IPv4 address transfer requests following the adoption of this proposed policy, subject to the following conditions: Conditions on the IPv4 address block: - Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefix may be transferred.I think it would be clearer to refer to prefix length or block size but not both.
could you please suggest some alternative wording here? I must admit that I use these terms interchangeably, so I know what I'm talking about (! :-)) but I can see the potential for confusion here. Is there a way that you can suggest to make this clearer?
- 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.In a message about version 1 of this proposal you stated that you worked "on the principle that what is written in the proposal would be adopted if the policy was to be adopted and what is not written in the proposal would not change if the policy was not to be adopted".I'd like to clarify what I think the proposal states as I am not sure if I understand the meaning correctly. As I understand it, APNIC membership is open globally without conditions and members have full access to all services[1].
The reference you cite asserts that, and I'm in no position to contradic tthe referenced NRO document.
Am I right in reading your proposal to mean
that any organisation anywhere in the world could take advantage of this policy and become the recipient of a transfer (if adopted) as long as they take up APNIC membership?
This would be a logical inference of the combination of this policy proposal and the APNIC member conditions you have referenced from the NRO web site.
[...]- 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.The meaning of this paragraph depends on whether address transfers go directly from member to member or go via APNIC. I am not sure which is the case but if transfers are direct and do not go via APNIC it would seem that an APNIC member that transferred resources away could go on to receive additional resources from another member but not from APNIC within 24 months. Could you please clarify whether transfers need to go via APNIC?
Hmmm - I know what I meant to say, but it appears that I have not said it clearly. Let me try to rephrase this, and see if the rephrasing makes the policy proposal clear, or whether you see a need to reword this to make the intent clearer.
Today, a member can make a case for the assignement or allocation of address space from APNIC on the basis of demonstrated need. If a member is the source of an address transfer under the terms of this policy, then APNIC will not undertake any allocations or assignments to this member for a period of 24 months after the transfer.
Now all transfers in the terms of this policy are in effect transfers from a member to a member (or "current APNIC acoucnt holder" under the terms of this policy). The policy is a proposal for APNIC to 'recognise" this transfer and make the appropriate changes to its registry data to reflect this change of right-of-use holder.
So I do not see a distinction betweem address transfers that go directly from member to member or go via APNIC - all transfer that are to be recognised by APNIC under the terms of this policy are in effect transfers from member to member and are recognised by APNIC in its registry.
Regards, Leo [1] http://www.nro.net/documents/nro46.html#1-2
regards, Geoff