That makes little to no sense. All that will accomplish is increasing the unused addresses held by those that don’t need them while limiting the ability of those that need addresses to acquire them from those that have them available.
I’m not one for abandoning needs-basis, nor am I in favor of hoarding, but this proposal ignores the historical realities of the internet and the current addressing situation.
Further, continuing to contort ourselves around the ability to pretend that IPv4 can somehow be sustained is folly. We are long past the point that we should realize that we need a larger address space. For better or worse, v6 is what we have available and the sooner we can progress towards sufficient v6 deployment and the retirement of v4, the better off we will all be.
Even Amazon is (finally) publishing AAAA records now, so we are getting closer to the day when eyeball networks can start treating v4 as optional.
It’s time to ask sites like Ali Baba, 163, and ten cent to get off the dime. It’s especially pathetic in tencent’s case because their front end is already Akamai where all they have to do is opt in. Akamai will deliver v6 on behalf of their v4 backend.
Owen On Aug 24, 2023, at 04:10, Rajesh Panwala <raj...@smartlinkindia.com> wrote:
Hi Team,
As per my opinion, to stop the menace of hoarding of resources and depriving it to the real user, that as new allocation is restricted to/23 , same way transfer from resources holder should also be restricted to /23 in a year
This may put some check on hoarding or sort of black marketing. Need to frame policy for the same. Any constructive feedback is welcome.
Regards,
Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt Ltd +91-9227886001 +91-9426110781
> On Aug 22, 2023, at 05:16, Ashish Agarwal <ashishagarwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <auction.png>
>
> One basic question, are auctions/ IPV4 brokers like these permitted by IANA / APNIC ? If so it makes
> the implementation of any restriction very difficult.
>
> thanks
Your question sounds simple enough, but it’s very complex.
What possible recourse would APNIC have to restrict an auction of addresses by a US company on behalf of a provider registered in RIPE NCC?
I suppose APNIC could, theoretically block the inbound transfer (assuming that the winning bidder chooses to transfer the addresses into APNIC), but since the transfer (presumably) meets all of the outbound eligibility criteria for RIPE NCC (I’m sure there are some, but I’m equally sure RIPE NCC makes them pretty minimal), but that would violate the APNIC policy as currently written. Changing the APNIC policy to block this would probably make it incompatible with the ARIN policy and open a different can of worms.
So, exactly what restrictions do you want that don’t currently exist and why do you think they would be beneficial?
Owen
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
|
