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

To: Shin SHIRAHATA <null at null dot nu>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] InternetNZ position on prop-106-v001: Restricting excessive IPv4 address transfers under the final /8 block
From: Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:44:48 +1300
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <20130206130113.0F5C.29440226 at null dot nu>
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> <20130206130113.0F5C.29440226@null.nu>

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Shin SHIRAHATA <null at null dot nu> wrote:
> 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?

They did indeed mention this.  They also mentioned that the maximum
number of /22s allocated to any one member was five.
We do not view this as a worrying trend, nor a need to create policy
to arrest it.
These five /22 blocks represent 0.03% of the address space within 103/8.

So I can confirm that we do not see these kinds of activities at this
level to be an issue.

Regards,
Dean