Re: [sig-policy] prop-050-v002: IPv4 address transfers

To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-050-v002: IPv4 address transfers
From: Shin SHIRAHATA <null at null dot nu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:41:17 +0900
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <47959381.1000602 at nic dot ad dot jp>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <47959381.1000602@nic.ad.jp>


> 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".

I believe this proposal will play an important role in next few years.

I think these conditions are not clear that transfer part of address 
block is allowed.

For example, an entity that have /16 can transfer /17 to another entity
or entity should transfer whole of /16.

regards,
Shin

---
"No caffeine, No work. "
Shin Shirahata <null at null dot nu> / <true at sfc.wide dot ad dot jp>
http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~true/