Re: [sig-policy] prop-050-v002: IPv4 address transfers
On 23 Jan 2008, at 19:18, Geoff Huston wrote:
[...]
- 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?
How about:
- Only IPv4 prefixes of /24 or shorter may be transferred.
you know that phrasing is more confusing for me! :-)
I'm sure that says something about us but I am not sure what :-)
[...]
- 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.
I think I would phrase it like this.
- An APNIC member that has been the source of a resource transfer
may not receive IPv4 resources direct from APNIC or from an APNIC
member for 24 months after the completion of the transfer.
Does my phrasing capture your intended meaning?
no - the "or from an APNIC member" is something I cannot parse - I'm
unclear what you are referring to here.
Maybe this makes more sense?
- An APNIC member that has transferred resources to another
APNIC member may not receive IPv4 resources from APNIC or
its members for the next 24 months.
I suppose this APNIC member is free to join other RIRs and receive
resources from them and their members, though?
Can you please explain why you chose 24 months as the length of
time a member may not receive IPv4 resources once they have
transferred resources away? Why is it more suitable than a shorter
or longer period?
What about the situation of a member who receives address space from
APNIC, transfers it elsewhere then reapplies to APNIC for for
addresses based on the size of their deployed network, transfers
them elsewhere, reapplies to APNIC for more addresses... ?
I understand the problem. I just wonder why 24 months makes more sense
that 18 months or 36 months. Does it tie in with something else?
Regards,
Leo