Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 23 Jan 2008, at 19:18, Geoff Huston wrote: [...]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?- Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefixI think it would be clearer to refer to prefix length or block size but not both.may be transferred.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 :-)
I'm going to leave it there! :-)
no - the "or from an APNIC member" is something I cannot parse - I'm unclear what you are referring to here.[...]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.- The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from APNIC for a period of 24The 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?months after the transfer.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?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?
I'm not clear how an APNIC policy can constrain others in such a way. If, for example I have an address allocation from APNIC and I transfer it to you, then I sign up as a customer of Big Provider Inc, an APNIC member, and receive a /28 address block as part of the customer contract then I see no problem here. Are you saying that the policy should constrain Big Provider Inc from making this customer allocation to me?
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?
It seemed like a suitably long enough time to circumvent the situation described above. It also may well extend to around the point of IPv4 unallocated address pool exhaustion.
regards, Geoff