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

To: Shin SHIRAHATA <null at null dot nu>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-050-v002: IPv4 address transfers
From: David Hughes <david.hughes at webcentral dot com dot au>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:00:44 +1000
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <20080129181152.5016.NULL@null.nu>
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> <20080129181152.5016.NULL@null.nu>


Hello Shin,


On 29/01/2008, at 7:41 PM, Shin SHIRAHATA wrote:

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 anotherentity
or entity should transfer whole of /16.

The proposal speaks of the transfer of address blocks. It makes no

mention of allocations. Isn't it reasonably clear that a block being

transfered can be a subnet of an allocation that has been made to the

transferring entity? There is no wording in the proposal restricting

transfers to address blocks aligned with complete APNC allocations.



Thanks

David
...