Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits whentransferringaddress
> What would be the effect of a policy to refuse to record a
> transfer of
> which both the relinquishing and acquiring party agree?
It can prevent that remaining IPv4 address space in IANA will be consumed very rapidly.
And it is a intention of prop-072, isn't it?.
> Would it be
> good for the Internet as a whole to have this information not
> recorded? Or do you want some organization other than the
> RIR for one
> of the parties to provide this kind of record?
I'm afraid that you misunderstood my position.
I'm supporting prop-050, so I want to avoid such situation, of course.
> Policies that constrain what the RIR allocates from its pool seem to
> risk fewer unintended consequences than attempting to influence the
> behavior of other parties.
So, your point is "Even if we will restrict transfer of newly allocated address space,
somebody will transfer it immediately in underground. In such case, information of such address
space is not recorded correctly on registry." Is it correct understanding?
If my understanding is correct, I agree it is one of disadvantage of my idea.
Thank you very much for pointing out.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schnizlein [mailto:schnizlein at isoc dot org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:46 PM
> To: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
> Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits
> whentransferringaddress space
>
> What would be the effect of a policy to refuse to record a
> transfer of
> which both the relinquishing and acquiring party agree? Would it be
> good for the Internet as a whole to have this information not
> recorded? Or do you want some organization other than the
> RIR for one
> of the parties to provide this kind of record?
>
> Policies that constrain what the RIR allocates from its pool seem to
> risk fewer unintended consequences than attempting to influence the
> behavior of other parties.
>
> John
>
> On 2009Mar12, at 7:32 AM, <myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp> wrote:
>
> > My answer is "APNIC doesn't need to take any action except
> > automatically rejecting
> > transfers which treating address space allocated within last 24
> > months.".
> > Please remember that my proposal is just "Allocated
> resource within
> > 24 months is not eligible for transfer",
> > and I'm NOT requesting APNIC to recognize cheating nor report it.
>
>