Re: [sig-policy] prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address trans
>
> > The IP black market is often held up as the boogeyman to try and scare us into bad policy decisions.
>
> If there are organisations out there that have decided that forming a new entity, receiving a /22 from APNIC, transferring it to their original entity, and winding up the new entity is the easiest way for them to receive additional IPv4 resource, I'm fairly certain that this proposal isn't going to stop them. They'll just continue to do what they're doing, but without actually informing APNIC of the transfer. No black market involved, as the address space is still ultimately allocated to the people using it, albeit through different memberships/legal entities.
>
> I'm not trying to scare anyone into anything. My concern with the proposal is nothing to do with the black market, it's that it wont actually have the intended effect of preventing organisations getting more than a single /22 under the final /8 policy.
This proposal isn't going to stop forming a new entry and receiving a /22
from APNIC by policy, but it will changes financial incentives.
Under the second option, there is a no financial incentive to transfer from
last /8 block. Because obtaining IP address through IPv4 address transfer
would much cheaper choice as long as following condition is true:
Deposit amount of APNIC Membership fee (e.g 10yrs) for /22 > cost of transfer /22
Regards,
Shin