Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
On 01/06/2009, at 4:42 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
- transfer proposal applies to all address holdings as held by current
members of APNIC
Does that imply that historical holdings by in-region non-members
(glibly assuming such a thing exists) cannot be transferred to current
member? or do you simply mean that a recipient has to be a member of
APNIC? (or subordinate NIR should they adopt?)
- NIRs have the choice as to when to adopt this policy for their
members
(i.e. members of NIRs)
That is definitely "when" not "if", yeah??
- when a member disposes of address space using this transfer policy
the
member should not be entitled to any further IPv4 allocations or
assigments from APNIC for an extended period (two years?)
or until the final /8 is reached.
- prior to the exhaustion of APNIC's IPv4 space (i.e. prior to the use
of the "final /8" allocation measures) recipients of transfers
will be
required to justify their need for address space. After this time
there
is no requirement for any form of evaluation of requirements for
eligibility.
Except APNIC membership ;)
If you have any other issues that you feel would assist this policy
gaining a suitable degree of general consensus in this community,
please
let us know, either directly to us, or via this mailing list.
I think the crux behind this is about acknowledging the issue that v4
is running out, and transfers are a simple mechanism to allow those
who no longer require their allocation to redistribute it to
organisations who can use it while maintaining the integrity of the
titles database.
What I'd also like to see is some wording to strongly suggest that
recipients need to be able to provide a v6 deployment plan, and if
appropriate the acquired v4 allocation automatically comes with a v6
allocation directly from APNIC (or NIR) if the recipient organisation
doesn't already have a v6 allocation. A suggestion/recommendation like
that should not be ceased by the final /8.
Terry