On 30/04/2009, at 16:30 , cwkuo wrote:
I also agree with Terry and Ji-Young.The prop-50 doesn't justify use of transferred space using the allocation and assignment policies and restrictions, it will conflict with the goals of address management of Conservation and Fairness (You can see at "5 Goals ofaddress space management",
I take a different view and I'd also like to comment on the 5 Goals in relation to Prop-050.
Section 5.1.2 charters APNIC to ensure that assignments and allocations "must be registered in a publicly accessible database. This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet troubleshooting at all levels. It also reflects the expectation of the Internet community that custodians of these public resources should be identifiable. "
When we have addresses being transferred to others unofficially then that goal cannot be met.
It also seems clear to me that address space that is being transferred from one entity to another is clearly not being used and therefore the Conservation goal is not being promoted.
I think it's more relevant to look at this section: 5.2 Conflict of goalsThe goals of conservation and aggregation often conflict with each other. Also, some or all of the goals may occasionally conflict with the interests of individual IRs or end-users. Therefore, IRs evaluating requests for address space must carefully analyse all relevant considerations and try to balance the needs of the requestor with the needs of the Internet community as a whole.
I've said this before but I'm going to again - I believe that the APNIC hostmasters and other staff are perfectly able to look at requests from those people who would seek to exploit this and reject requests on the basis of existing policies where necessary.
There may be a scenario if we pass Prop-50 where the IPv4 address space will run out a few weeks earlier than it would have done but in the end it will make little or no difference to the final outcome.