On 17/06/2009, at 19:24 , Geoff Huston wrote:
We have two suggested alternatives for the final highlight: A: 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 a period of 24 months. or B: 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.
I find it an interesting challenge to decide here so I'm going to go through the pros and cons of these two options as I see them and hope it helps me and others decide.
Option A:I see the advantage here that it makes an address holder think before disposing of addresses they are not using if they know they cannot get any more for the next 24 months. This should discourage people from disposing of address space simply for financial reasons.
There's a possibility that some exceptional circumstances arise that mean that someone has a genuine need for more address space during this period - they might have a sudden growth in demand that was not predicted. Perhaps a very full set of documentation with an associated cost comparable with the initial allocation fee might cover this.
I don't see any particular advantages or disadvantages to the person receiving the address block under this scheme.
Option B:I interpret this option as an attempt to discourage people from getting address space from APNIC or via a transfer and then onselling that space immediately. This is a concern expressed by a number of people on this list.
I wonder does the 12 month window achieve the desired result of conserving IPv4 space. If I'm someone who wants to speculate in IPv4 address trading then I could make a serious effort to accumulate as much as IPv4 space as I could over the next few months. I'd then be in a good position to sell or trade that space in the second half of 2010 and in 2011 just as IPv4 space is predicted to run out. Someone disposing of address space that they've held for over twelve months to such a speculator could request space from APNIC immediately. Perhaps this 12 month window should be 24 months?
The IPv4 Exhaustion Counter at http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html estimates that we have almost exactly 24 months left until we run out. Should all our timing constraints in these proposals set a deadline related to the "final /8" policy?
On balance I'd prefer that we go with a Clause A approach which read something like:
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 a period of 24 months or until the "final / 8" assignment measures are implemented. In exceptional circumstances a member can submit a comprehensive plan justifying an allocation. A substantial processing fee will be charged.