I again put my support this proposal as i have done before .




*Regards / Jahangir *

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:12 PM, chku <c...@twnic.net.tw> wrote:

> Dear SIG members
>
> A new version of the proposal "prop-116: Prohibit to transfer IPv4
> addresses in the final /8 block" has been sent to the Policy SIG for
> review.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will
> be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September
> 2017.
>
> Information about earlier versions is available from:
>
>     http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-116
>
> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>
>  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>  - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>
> Please find the text of the proposal below.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> prop-116-v004: Prohibit to transfer IPv4 addresses in the final /8 block
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proposer:       Tomohiro Fujisaki
>                 fujis...@syce.net
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> --------------------
>
> There are a lot of transfers of IPv4 address blocks from 103/8
> happening, both within the APNIC region and among RIRs.
>
> Then number of transfer from 103/8 block are about 200, which is about
> 12% of the total number of transfers. This looks so high since APNIC
> manages about 40/8.
>
> And based on the information provided by APNIC Secretariat, number of
> transfers from the 103/8 block are increasing year by year.
>
> Updated by APNIC Secretariat on 27 January 2017:
>
> 1) M&A transfers containing 103/8 space
>
> +------+-----------+-----------+-
> |      |   Total   | Number of |
> | Year | Transfers |   /24s    |
> +------+-----------+-----------+-
> | 2011 |         3 |         12 |
> | 2012 |        10 |         46 |
> | 2013 |        18 |         66 |
> | 2014 |       126 |        498 |
> | 2015 |       147 |        573 |
> | 2016 |        63 |        239 |
> | 2017 |        45 |        178 |
> +------+-----------+------------+-
>
> 2) Market transfers containing 103/8 space
>
> +------+-----------+-----------+
> |      |   Total   | Number of |
> | Year | Transfers |   /24s    |
> +------+-----------+-----------+
> | 2011 |         2 |         2 |
> | 2012 |        21 |        68 |
> | 2013 |        16 |        61 |
> | 2014 |        25 |        95 |
> | 2015 |        67 |       266 |
> | 2016 |       103 |       394 |
> | 2017 |        70 |       288 |
> +------+-----------+-----------+
>
> And also, transfers from the 103/8 block include:
>   - Take place within 1 year of distribution, or
>   - Multiple blocks to a single organization in case of beyond 1 year.
>
> Further, there is a case where a single organization have received 12
> blocks transfers from 103 range.
>
> see:  https://www.apnic.net/transfer-resources/transfer-logs
>
> From these figures, it is quite likely that substantial number of 103/8
> blocks are being used for transfer purpose.
>
> This conflicts with the concept of distribution of 103/8 block
> (prop-062), which is intended to accommodate minimum IPv4 address blocks
> for new comers.
>
> prop-062: Use of final /8
>   https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -----------------------------
>
> When stated problem is solved, distribution from 103/8 block will be
> consistent with its original purpose, for distribution for new entrants
> to the industry. Without the policy change, substantial portion of 103/8
> blocks will be consumed for transfer purpose.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -----------------------------
>
> None.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---------------------------
>
> Prohibit transfer IPv4 addresses under /8 address block (103/8) which
> have not passed two years after its allocation/assignment. If the
> address block allocated to a LIR in two years is not needed any more, it
> must return to APNIC to allocate to another organization using final /8
> policy. This two years requirement will apply both market and M&A
> transfers.
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> -----------------------------
>
> Advantages:
>   - It makes 103/8 blocks available according to the original purpose,
>     as distribution for new entrants (rather than being consumed for
>     transfer purpose)
>
>   - IPv4 addresses under final /8 are not transferred to outside APNIC.
>
>   - By prohibiting transfer, them, it is possible to keep one /22 for
>     each LIRs state, which is fair for all LIRs.
>
> Disadvantages:
> None.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> ------------------------------
>
>   - LIRs cannot transfer address blocks under 103/8. No big impact while
>     they use it.
>
>   - Organizations which needs to receive transferred IPv4 can continue
>     to do so, outside 103/8 blocks (which should be made available for
>     new entrants)
>
>
> 7. References
> -------------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sig-policy-chair mailing list
> sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair
>
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>    *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to