Re: [sig-policy] prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address trans
(I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wonder whether it is practical to expect an absolute prohibition to be effective.)
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com> wrote:
> All of them.
>
> Here's the problem… If you're trying to circumvent the last /8 policy
> by creating a pseudo-org, obtaining a /22, then transferring that /22
> to the original org., then it's easy enough to do the transfer either
> by having the parent acquire the pseudo-org (M&A) or by having the
> resources transferred under Section 3.
>
> Owen
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann dot org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Owen,
>>
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Which part of the transfer policy? Section 3 deals with transfers between
>> APNIC account holders while section 6 deals with corporate M&A activity.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Leo
>
> * 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