CARVIEW

MOTORHOMES

Select Language

HTTP/2 200 date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 13:15:58 GMT content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 cf-ray: 95f14ab94dca75e9-BLR cf-cache-status: DYNAMIC last-modified: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:33:29 GMT vary: Accept-Encoding x-content-type-options: nosniff strict-transport-security: max-age=15552000; preload server: cloudflare content-encoding: gzip [sig-policy] Report on prop-050: IPv4 address transfers

[sig-policy] Report on prop-050: IPv4 address transfers

To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: [sig-policy] Report on prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
From: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:05:27 +0900
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
List-archive: <https://mailman.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>
Organization: Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)

prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
________________________________________________________________________
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussion on the proposal since the last
summary was posted on 7 February 2008. We encourage you to continue
discussion on the mailing list before it is presented at the Policy
SIG session at APNIC 25 on Thursday 28 February 2008.
We particularly encourage those of you who have previously not taken
part in the discussion to express your views:
    - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
    - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
      tell the community about your situation.
    - 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?
Discussion statistics
---------------------
Number of posts
   - Since last summary:                        15
   - Since proposal posted (22 January 2008):   35
People participating in discussions
   - Since last summary:                         6
   - Since proposal posted (22 January 2008):   11
Economy of origin of participants:               3 from Australia
                                                 3 from Japan
                                                 5 from outside AP
Summary of discussion since last summary
----------------------------------------
Note: The discussion that has taken place since 7 February has
resulted from ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) discussions being
cross-posted to the APNIC Policy SIG mailing list.
    - Similar proposals have been submitted in the RIPE and ARIN
      regions
    - Accepting transfers only from within the region is a way to keep
      IP addresses within the regions in which they were originally
      allocated
    - How could inter-RIR transfers take place?
        - Should transfers be addressed as a globally coordinated
          activity or proposal?
        - Could global transfers result in unbalanced IPv4 distribution?
          If so, how could this be prevented?
Full details of the proposal, including a link to the previous
discussion summary posted to this list, can be found at:
    https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-050-v002.html

Original Source | Taken Source