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 ske...@v4now.com <mailto:ske...@v4now.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 <geo...@apnic.net <mailto:geo...@apnic.net>> wrote: Hi Owen, On 15/09/2015 3:36 am, Owen DeLong wrote: On Sep 14, 2015, at 01:59 , Masato Yamanishi <myama...@gmail.com <mailto:myama...@gmail.com> <mailto:myama...@gmail.com <mailto:myama...@gmail.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@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
