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 themember 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 policygaining a suitable degree of general consensus in this community, pleaselet 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.