Re: [sig-policy] prop-104-v001: Clarifying demonstrated needs requiremen
Thank you very much for the comments.
> I neither support nor appose the proposal at this stage.
> In order to make a decision, I would like to hear some more
> information from the author on the following points.
>
> 1) Has the situation that this proposal seeks to correct actually
> been a problem with a real request? I would like to understand if
> this is already effecting operational networks, or if we are trying to
> address an academic difference in RIR allocation policies.
Yes, We are facing the shortage of the IPv4 address on operational
network. Also, I realized that the transcational cost (find source
organization etc..) of an IPv4 address transfer isn't small.
> 2) What was the rationale towards asking for 24 months as the new
> period. Why is this any better than 18 or 36 months? I would like to
> ensure that we're not going to need to change this in the short term
> due to guessing at this stage.
I think 24 months is commonly used period of address planning.
For example:
1) According to "LIR address space management" section in
APNIC-124,
"...address estimates should be made for"
- Immediately,
- Within one year, and
- *Within two years*"
2) According to 祢nitial allocation" section in APNIC-089,
"d. Meet one of the two following criteria:
- Have a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other
organizations within *two years* OR
- Be an existing LIR with IPv4 allocations from an APNIC or
an NIR, which will make IPv6 assignments or sub-allocations
to other organizations and announce the allocation in the
inter-domain routing system within *two years*."
Thus, I believe two years is a reasonable period.
> 3) What happens if an RIR adopts a much longer time period, eg 5
> years. Does this proposal bind us to blindly follow them, or are we
> still able to determine our own direction here.
I understand your concern.
My intention is create equal condition on Inter-RIR transfers to
APNIC members. But I didn't care about side effects of following
other RIRs.
Thus, I'll withdraw a following paragraph from the proposal.
"In case of Inter-RIR transfer, when there is a RIR which defines a
period longer than 24 months in the future, the longer period adopted by
the other RIR will be adopted."
Regards,
Shin
> Regards,
>
> Dean
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
> > Are there any further comments on this proposal before we discuss this at
> > the Policy SIG meeting tomorrow?
> >
> > andy
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear SIG members
> >>
> >> The proposal "prop-104-v001: Clarifying demonstrated needs requirement
> >> in IPv4 transfer policy' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
> >>
> >> It will be discussed at the Policy SIG at APNIC 34 in Phnom Penh,
> >> Cambodia, Thursday, 30 August 2012.
> >>
> >> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> >> before the meeting.
> >>
> >
> >
> > * 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dean
> * 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
---
No caffeine, No work.
白畑 真 <shin at shirahata dot name> / <true at sfc.wide dot ad dot jp>
http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~true/