Re: [sig-policy] InternetNZ position on prop-106-v001: Restricting exces

To: Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] InternetNZ position on prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the final /8 block
From: Shin SHIRAHATA <null at null dot nu>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:04:14 +0900
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <CAHT1SrFEwT4Noqo6o=Mb=nX25iiJMenV=AZ9Q=Bci-diWZp09w at mail dot gmail dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <CAHT1SrFEwT4Noqo6o=Mb=nX25iiJMenV=AZ9Q=Bci-diWZp09w@mail.gmail.com>


Thank you for your comment.

> 1. Based on information provided by the APNIC secretariat, there is no
> evidence supporting a threat to exploit any perceived loophole in the
> APNIC transfer policy.  As such this proposal does not address a
> well-defined, well-accepted problem.

As you mentioned, APNIC secretariat indicated us that 15 APNIC 
members have multiple /22 from 103/8 in single account by transfers.
I think the fundamental part of the discussion is a perception of 
the numbers since we're discussing on the same data.

I would like to confirm that you don't think these kind of actives 
are not issue?

regards,
Shin