Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 transfer proposals {Security = Unclassified}
On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:24 AM, HENDERSON MIKE, MR wrote:
> Amongst the primary aspects of policy are that the published policy
> should be
> * capable of being implemented, and
> * capable of being enforced.
>
> Very soon, there will be no more IPv4 addresses available in the APNIC
> pool, except under very tightly confined criteria. If an organisation
> has a perceived business need for additional IPv4 addresses, they will
> have to buy them off someone else: there will be no other source.
> These transfers WILL take place, either openly or under the table. Once
> EBay (or your local equivalent) starts to feature "For sale: IPv4
> Address block 'xxx.123.123.0/24'", in my opinion all the RIRs can do is
> either facilitate or try to ignore the transfers, they can't stop them.
> Any attempt to externally regulate such transactions is in my view
> doomed to fail, the best we can hope to do is to maintain the integrity
> of our registry by acknowledging the fact of the transfers.
>
Respectfully, I am not so sure this conclusion is accurate.
Most ISPs look to RIR databases to confirm authorization prior to accepting
a prefix from someone. RIRs hold the keys to in-addr.arp as well.
Both of these things are actually important to many legitimate uses of
address space. I think that organizations attempting to acquire address
space will want to avoid address space that has dubious origins
and limited ability to get their routes accepted.
I think that those forces will drive the market towards transfers that
can be recognized by the RIRs even with policy enforcement.
> In relation to prop-096, if a purchaser is prepared to spend $1, or $10,
> or $100, or whatever the market price will be, for an IPv4 address, then
> as I see it they very obviously have "a need for those resources". The
> need will be a business need, which may be to set up a web site (a
> 'good' purpose?) or to accumulate a bank of saleable assets (a 'bad'
> purpose?).
>
Not necessarily. If a purchaser believes that they will be able to find
someone with a need so bad they will pay $100, said purchaser without
need may be quite willing to purchase as many IP addresses as they
can afford at $10, up to and including, possibly, the full market
inventory in order to drive the price up.
A market with limited supply and no rules is a market begging to
be manipulated for arbitrage opportunities. Doing this to the IP
address pool will be a great disservice to the community.
>
> I am opposed to both these proposals.
>
I support prop-096
I would support prop-095 if it were modified that the
transferor policies of the source registry and the transferee
policies of the recipient registry were the ones applied.
I tentatively support prop-095 as it is written, but, note that it
may be incompatible with the proposed globally coordinated
policy and/or policies under consideration in other regions.
Owen
>
> Regards
>
>
> Mike
>
> Disclaimer: 'The opinions expressed in this message are mine personally
> and do not necessarily reflect any position of my employer.'
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Gaurab Raj
> Upadhaya
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 February 2011 2:19 p.m.
> To: APNIC Policy SIG List
> Subject: [sig-policy] IPv4 transfer proposals
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> As noted in yesterday's email summarizing final /8 proposals, it's
> important to get discussion underway on this mailing list well before
> APNIC 31 begins.
>
> There are two proposals related to APNIC's IPv4 transfer policy. The
> policy that these proposals would amend can be found in Section 3,
> "Transfers of IPv4 addresses", in "APNIC transfer, merger, acquisition,
> and takeover policy":
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy#ipv4
>
>
> 1. Summary of IPv4 transfer policy amendments
> - ---------------------------------------------
>
> prop-095: Inter-RIR transfer proposal
>
> - Permit IPv4 transfers between APNIC account holders and
> organizations with corresponding relationships with other
> RIRs, as long as the other RIR also has an inter-RIR
> transfer policy that permits transfers with APNIC.
>
> - The transfer policy of the source RIR applies when
> conducting inter-RIR transfers.
>
> prop-096: Revision to transfer policy
>
> - Extend the requirement for recipients of transferred IPv4
> addresses to justify a need for those resources.
>
>
> 2. Next steps: we need YOU!
> - ---------------------------
>
> Some initial questions to help the community begin discussion on the
> above proposals are:
>
> - What impact would these proposals have if implemented together,
> or separately?
>
> - How would continuing the need to justify a transfer during the
> final /8 phase affect:
>
> - Other proposed amendments to the final /8 policy (if at all)?
> - The ability for APNIC to conduct inter-RIR transfers?
>
>
> - - Gaurab
> - --
>
> http://www.gaurab.org.np/
>
> The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
> for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
> necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
> If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
> distribute this message or the information in it.
>
> If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
> the sender immediately.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy