CARVIEW

MOTORHOMES

Select Language

HTTP/2 200 date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 22:38:56 GMT content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 cf-ray: 95ec45ff8a50c462-BLR cf-cache-status: DYNAMIC last-modified: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:41:16 GMT vary: Accept-Encoding x-content-type-options: nosniff strict-transport-security: max-age=15552000; preload server: cloudflare content-encoding: gzip Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers - passed to mailing li

Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers - passed to mailing li

To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers - passed to mailing list for development
From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:47:54 +1000
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <46FA1644.2020805 at psg dot com>
List-archive: <https://www.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: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <46FA1644.2020805@psg.com>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)

I'm posting this summary to the sig-policy mailing list to start some

discussion of this proposal.

thanks,
   Geoff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal was presented at the APNIC 24 Policy SIG. The proposer
did not seek a consensus call at the meeting. The proposal is being
passed to the the mailing list for further development by the community
and the proposal, as refined, will be submitted to APNIC 25.
Proposal details
----------------
The proposal is for APNIC to process IPv4 address transfer requests
for address blocks that meet a number of criteria.
Conditions on the IPv4 address block:
    - Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefix
      may be transferred.
    - The address block must be in the range of addresses administered
      by APNIC, either as part of a /8 address block assigned by the
      IANA to APNIC, or as part of a historically-assigned address
      block now administered by APNIC.
    - The address block must be allocated or assigned to a current
      APNIC account holder.
    - The address block will be subject to all current APNIC policies
      from the time of transfer. This includes address blocks
      previously considered to be "historical".
Conditions on source of the transfer:
    - The source entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
    - The source entity must be the currently registered holder of the
      IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
      the status of those resources.
    - The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
      address allocations or assignments from APNIC for a period of 24
      months after the transfer.
    - In making any future IPv4 address resource requests to APNIC,
      for as long as IPv4 address resources are available from APNIC,
      following the expiration of this 24 month ineligibility
      period, the source will be required to document the reasons for
      the IPv4 address resource allocation.
Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
    - The recipient entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
    - The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be
      subject to current APNIC policies. In particular, in any
      subsequent APNIC IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient
      will be required to account for all IPv4 address space held,
      including all transferred resources.
    - APNIC fees payable by the recipient will be assessed on the
      basis of all resources held.
Discussion at APNIC 24
----------------------
Questions were raised regarding:
- why this policy would not extend to members of NIRs?
  The proposer responded that the NIRs had not been consulted on this
  proposal at that time. This remains an open issue and the issues
  relating to transfers and NIRs does need further consideration.
  It was mentioned that JPNIC is planning a special working group on
  considering address transfer issues and management of historical
  address holdings and intended to report in this activity at APNIC 25.
- why this did not apply to inter-RIR transfers?
  The proposer responded that this was not being proposed as a globally
  coordinated policy, and was intended to be considered in the scope of
  APNIC.
  It was suggested that the proposal be more open-ended and propose that
  APNIC would allow transfers with other RIRs that also allowed such
  transfers.
- what can we do to make this marketplace more transparent, more fair,
  more open and most beneficial to the Internet users and operators in
  general?
  The proposer responded that one of the ways of showing what good
  behaviour in a market was to operate a market place in an exemplary
  fashion and lead by example rather than by exhortation.
- why does this not apply to historical resource holdings?
  It was noted that there exists a process within the APNIC procedural
  framework to convert historical addresses to current, and this
  proposal does not usurp or overrule such a policy. A disposer of an
  historical address block would firstly need to convert the address to
  a current holding before this transfer policy would be applicable.
- why is this proposal limited to address blocks equal to or larger than
  a /24?
  The proposer responded that a /24 appears to be the smallest unit of
  address space that we actually see as being an advertisable, useful
  address block. This proposal makes that leap of faith and says the
  minimum is a /24. It's certainly part and parcel of this process of
  review.
- do recipients of a transfer need to demonstrate need as per APNIC's
  direct allocation and assignment policies?
  The proposer indicated that as the proposal stood, the only point at
  which the recipient has to demonstrate that particular requirement of
  eligibility to me is at the point in time that they come back to APNIC
  for a direct IPv4 allocation, in which case all of their holdings,
  including those obtained by transfer, are then assessed by the policy.
Following the discussion, there was clear support to continued
discussion of this proposal
Next steps
----------

It would be very helpful to hear your opinions on this proposal. Here

are some questions that may help start discussion:

- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
- Should such a proposal be adopted prior to the anticipated point
  of exhaustion of the IPv4 unallocated address pool?
- Are there risks in not adopting this policy, or something similar? Are
  such risks unacceptable?
- Should transfers require qualification of the recipient to need to
  demonstrate a need in the same fashion as a direct allocation or
  assignment?
- How should this relate to NIRs and members of NIRs? Are NIRs bound to
  operate under asn APNIC transfer policy, if adopted by APNIC?
For more information on the policy proposal, see:
     https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-050-v001.html

Original Source | Taken Source