Thank you Skeeve! I'll refer you to Paul's reply earlier to Owen. Hope this helps. regards, George On 16 Sep 2015, at 10:00, Owen DeLong wrote: > I fully support the plan George described. >> If George states that policy is useful in pursuing that plan, I say we pass a policy that codifies the plan.
>> Otherwise, I say let’s focus our efforts on IPv6 and let IPv4 disintegrate as it will.
I agree with the sentiment, however let’s remember that there is demonstrated demand for IPv4 addresses, and ongoing interest in how the address space is managed. It is not for APNIC (Secretariat) to judge that or do anything other than respond as we are requested to do so (both in terms of services provided and participation in discussions as they arise).
All the best! Paul. On 16/09/2015 8:10 am, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
This sounds good George.
Do you need any support from the community to bring this into affect...
in the form of endorsement on this list, policy proposal (happy to do one).
Let us know.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker*
*v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service
skeeve at v4now dot com <mailto:skeeve at v4now dot com> ; www.v4now.com
<http://www.v4now.com/>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now <http://facebook.com/v4now> ;
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog:
www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> ; Keybase:
https://keybase.io/skeeve
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:07 AM, George Kuo <george at apnic dot net
<mailto:george at apnic dot net>> wrote:
Hi Owen,
On 15/09/2015 3:36 am, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 14, 2015, at 01:59 , Masato Yamanishi
<myamanis at gmail dot com <mailto:myamanis at gmail dot com>
<mailto:myamanis at gmail dot com <mailto:myamanis at gmail dot com>>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In Jakarta, Geoff Huston presented the status of our IPv4
resources,
in particular about exhaustion and transfer,
and some participants asked to summarize and post it to the
list for
further discussion.
Following is Chairs' summary of the presentation and discussion.
1. Status of APNIC Final /8 pool (103/8)
- Will run out ~4-5 years
I think this is an appropriate time frame for runout of this
pool as it
will be at least that long before new entrants are not in need
of some
way to communicate with the legacy IPv4 internet.
2. Status of IANA Recovered pool (non-103)
- Will run out in next 7 months+
- IANA may allocate additional space in every 6 months
- This pool will repeatedly ‘run-out’ as IANA delegates
more space
and it is distributed by APNIC
- May need policy to deal with temporary exhaustion of
the non-103 pool
-> Close the door when exhausted or create the waiting
list and
put further applications to there?
I really don’t care what we do here. What would be the default
action if
no policy change is enacted? Can we get clarification from staff
on that?
Absent that being a particularly bad outcome (unlikely), I say
let’s not
focus on rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs any further.
There is no policy which addresses this issue however APNIC staff
have discussed this and propose the following approach:
When requests from this pool are approved but cannot be fulfilled
they will be added to a waitlist. When additional resources are
added to the pool, they will be allocated to wait-listed requests
(in order) until the pool is consumed or the waitlist is cleared.
We will continue in this way until there is a policy which directs
otherwise.
We believe this is fairer than rejecting requests which cannot be
fulfilled, and then having to deal with a flood of new requests when
we announce availability of additional resources (in particular
because the timing of that announcement will strongly influence who
can take advantage of it).
Feedback and discussion on this approach would be welcome of course.
Thanks.
George
3. Some address spaces in 103/8 were transferred within
12months since
initial allocation
- There is no policy to prohibit it while the
Secretariat asks in
review process
Closing the door after the horses have left the barn is likely
pointless. The community specifically chose to exclude this
concern from
the transfer policy during its development (it’s not like it was not
discussed), so I say let’s spend this energy getting IPv6 deployed
rather than rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs any further.
Owen
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net <mailto:sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net <mailto:sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature