Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
Hash: SHA1
Hi Geoff
Appologies for the late response,
and thanks for introducing the idea to this list.
> I have some concern myself in thinking about this suggested replacement
> that that the mode of behaviour of the form: 1. apply for IPv4 space, 2.
> dispose of it by transfer, 3. apply for Ipv4 space again, ,... would not
> be prevented by the proposed replacement. Do others share my concern, or
> am I missing something in Seiichi-san's suggestion?
I was hoping that, if one intended to do such things,
it would work like this
1.apply for IPv4 space
2.wait one year and then dispose of the same address by transfer
3.apply for IPv4 space again
4.wait another year and then dipose of it by transfer again
If one had lots of addresses for a long time,
it would be possible to repeat the apply, transfer, apply, transfer
many times. However, they would have to transfer a different block than
the one that was obtained via allocation each time, which should
be a pretty big burden it gets repeated many times.
I should also ask if I'm missing something also.
Regards,
Seiichi
Geoff Huston wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In response to the call for comments and suggestions that Philip Smith
> and I made earlier this week, we've received the following suggestion
> from Seiichi Kawamura and two colleagues from the Japanese community. In
> the interests of ensuring that the community's discussion of this
> proposal occurs in the open I am forwarding their suggestion to the
> list, their kind permission.
>
> This note suggests to replace the constraint that "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?)" with constraint 4.1 described
> below, to be effective until APNIC reaches "final /8 policy".
>
> I have some concern myself in thinking about this suggested replacement
> that that the mode of behaviour of the form: 1. apply for IPv4 space, 2.
> dispose of it by transfer, 3. apply for Ipv4 space again, ,... would not
> be prevented by the proposed replacement. Do others share my concern, or
> am I missing something in Seiichi-san's suggestion?
>
> In any case Philip and I would appreciate any comments from others on
> the proposal to incorporate this suggestion from Seiichi-san into the
> revised prop-50 address transfer policy proposal, or any further
> comments about what should or should not be included in the revised
> address transfer policy proposal.
>
> thanks,
>
> Geoff
>
> Disclaimer: before I forget again, I should note that Geoff is writing
> this as an individual and not representing APNIC in any capacity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho at mesh dot ad dot jp>
>> Date: 1 June 2009 8:49:27 PM
>> To: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>, pfs at cisco dot com,
>> myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp, n-hirai at bb.softbank dot co dot jp
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi Geoff, Philip
>>
>> A couple of people from Japan including
>> myself, were getting together to post a proposal
>> on safeguards for address transfers... before prop-050
>> got sent back from the EC.
>>
>> 4.1 Any address that will be transfered must be held by the transfering
>> party for at least 12 months, regardless of how the address was
>> obtained.
>>
>> 4.2 Until the time when the use of "final /8 policy" is
>> put to action, the recipient of a transfer is to justify use
>> of the transferred address. After the "final /8 policy"
>> is put to action, no justification is needed.
>>
>> 4.3 While the above two rules are met, receiving new allocations
>> will not be a privelege that is taken away.
>>
>> 4.1 is something that I though will make us all feel
>> comfortable than a x-year 'allocation forbidding' period.
>>
>> IMHO, the AP region is very much conservative compared to
>> ARIN or RIPE and a privelege taken away may restrict
>> unused address holders from releasing their addresses.
>>
>> Can these propositions be incorporated with prop-050?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Seiichi Kawamura
>>
>
>
- --
##########################################
NEC BIGLOBE Ltd.
Platform Systems Division
Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho at mesh dot ad dot jp>
TEL : 03-3798-6085 (FAX: 03-3798-6029)
Mobile: 090-1547-4791
##########################################
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFKJzIzcrhTYfxyMkIRAvU7AJ9iwd+Wfne2/xFA2Xvnx5SC4UX29ACgjHNj
1H+jSVlOeR1t68ohJpCZrE4=
=q7dF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----