Hello Dean, Thank you for your comments. > 1) *There is no clearly defined problem accepted by the community* > The author provides no proof that there is a current problem, instead > choosing to speculate that there may seem to be a problem. > > I would need to see solid proof that the suggested situation was infant > happening before I would support any policy proposing so solve such a > problem. We observed that some LIRs are obtaining IPv4 address block from last /8 block, and then transfer into another account. http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~true/tmp/transfers_from_last_8_blk.png I'd like to ask Policy-sig members that this kind of transfers should be allowed, or restricted? We believe that kind of activities are against the spirit of the final /8 policy. > 2) *The proposal gives no firm policy details.* Instead offering two > options. If it is not clear which option would provide a clear solution to > a demonstrated problem then this policy needs much more discussion before > being considered at the policy sig. I'm sorry about no firm policy details in the proposal. Our intention is to raise awareness of the think kind of activities at this moment. I'll update to include single solution. Regards, Shin > 3). I need to be convinced that The Huston-Bush law of "It's all gone, get > over it!" doesn't apply here. Do we really care about the last little > dregs? Let people gather them. It's crumbs anyway. > > I am happy to discuss this issue, but as I have highlighted before, > bringing up new issues at the 11th hour as drafted policy is not in my > opinion the way to gain community consensus. > > So. > Convince me that there is a problem (with proof), choose a single solution > to fix it and convince me that these dregs are worth fighting over. Then > you'll have my support. > > Dean > > On Thursday, January 31, 2013, Andy Linton wrote: > > > Dear SIG Members > > > > The proposal "prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address > > transfers under the final /8 block' has been sent to the Policy SIG for > > review. > > > > It will be discussed at the Policy SIG at APNIC 35 in Singapore, > > Thursday 28 February 2013. > > > > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list > > before the meeting. > > > > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an > > important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to > > express your views on the proposal: > > > > - Do you support or oppose this proposal? > > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If > > so, tell the community about your situation. > > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? > > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more > > effective? > > > > Information about this proposal is available from: > > > > https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-106 > > > > Andy, Skeeve, Masato > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the > > final /8 block > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Authors: Shin SHIRAHATA shin at clara dot ad dot jp <_javascript_:;> > > Tomohiro Fujisaki fujisaki at syce dot net <_javascript_:;> > > > > > > > > 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 <_javascript_:;> > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Dean
