Re: [sig-policy] prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address trans
On Jan 31, 2013, at 20:16 , Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net> wrote:
> Speaking only as an individual and for myself.
>
> For what it is worth, I do not support this proposal.
>
> I think the introduction alone highlights the crux of my concern.
>
> If an LIR is applying for resources, and getting them, and using them to satisfy the goals of internet service provision - I see no problem here. The fact that they **might** [1] be getting IPv4 resources by using a new APNIC account and then transferring them to another existing account is near irrelevant. The recipient must still satisfy the usage provisions of the transfer policy (https://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy#recipient-conditions) and thus in my mind this says that IPv4 addresses are being validly used. To the extent of APNIC's stewardship of the resource pool and ensuring that IPv4 address are being distributed to where they are needed and provided uniqueness of the number space is maintained by ensuring that the address holder is known, the RIR mandate remains satisfied and the 'spirit' of the last /8 policy remains unmolested.
Actually, if that's what is happening, then it is a direct attempt to circumvent the intent of the last /8 policy. I hadn't thought
that particular scenario through, so I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.
I'm not sure I support this policy as written, but I do support policy to close said loophole.
I would propose that any prefix obtained from the last /8 (these are, after all, easily identifiable)
simply be excluded from the transfer policy and that all such prefixes be subject to reclamation
if the entity which received the prefix ceases operations.
While you may or may not support the intent of the last /8 policy (I personally have very mixed emotions about it),
the simple fact is that it did achieve consensus in the community and it should not be repealed by loophole absent
community consensus to change the policy.
>
> [1] Trying to prove intent here is an exercise in futility.
>
> All due respect to the authors, but mooting these two 'options' to (what I see as a non-existant) problem drags bottom-up stakeholder governance over to the dark side of enabling bureaucratic enforcement of financial and forfeiture barriers upon business operations.
>
Ah, yes, the ever present belief that any attempt to regulate business in the common interest is evil.
> Cheers
> Terry
> p.s deploy IPv6 and move on.
>
On this, we agree.
Owen
> On 31/01/2013, at 3:24 PM, Andy Linton wrote:
>>
>> prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the
>> final /8 block
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Authors: Shin SHIRAHATA shin at clara dot ad dot jp
>> Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki at syce dot net
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Introduction
>> ---------------
>>
>> This policy proposes to restricting IPv4 address transfers which
>> were allocated/assigned from the final /8 block.
>>
>> Based on our observations of the APNIC transfer history records,
>> some LIRs seems to collect IPv4 address blocks under the final /8
>> range by using multiple accounts, and transfer these blocks to
>> a single account. We believe this kind of behaviors are against
>> the spirit of the final /8 policy.
>>
>>
>> 2. Summary
>> ----------
>>
>> The current APNIC IPv4 address transfer policy allows to obtain
>> a maximum of /22 distribution(s) per each APNIC account holder.
>>
>> We propose add a restriction to IPv4 address transfer policy to
>> restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the final /8
>> block.
>>
>>
>> 3. Situation in other RIRs
>> --------------------------
>>
>> No similar policy at other RIRs.
>>
>>
>> 4. Details
>> ----------
>>
>> There are options to handle this problem.
>>
>> Option 1: Restrict IPv4 address transfers under the final /8 address
>> block for two years.
>>
>> - Prohibits transfers of the address block for two years after
>> receiving the distribution under the final /8 address block.
>>
>>
>> Option 2: Set a deposit for transfers under the final /8 range.
>>
>> - Pay ten years of APNIC's annual fees for transfered address
>> block in advance when receiving the final /8 address range
>> by address transfer or account name change.
>>
>> If an APNIC account holder transfers the final /8 range, the
>> rights associated with the advanced payment of the annual fees
>> will get dissolved, and the transfer recipient must pay the
>> annual fees just the same as regular APNIC account holders.
>>
>>
>> 5. Pros/Cons
>> ------------
>>
>> Advantages:
>>
>> - Restricting the last /8 address range to concentrate on a
>> particular account holder
>>
>> - Matches with the spirit of the final /8 policy
>>
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>> - The changes may increase an incentive of underground transfers.
>>
>>
>> 6. Effect on APNIC
>> ------------------
>>
>> Transfers from the final /8 address range will be restricted in
>> principle
>>
>>
>> 7. Effect on NIRs
>> -----------------
>>
>> NIRs need to adopt this policy.
>> * 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
>
> * 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