APNIC-sig-policy@Apr 18, 2009

Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:08:08 +1000
Subject: [sig-policy] New thoughts on 050

I am wondering. 050 is about resource transfers.

But does anyone have an opinion on resource leasing?

Example... I enter into a private agreement with a party to lease them an AS and the rights to route (or attempt to do so) a /21, and charge them a yearly fee.

050 stops transfers, but who cares about 050 if there are easier, simpler ways to accomplish the same thing - but better... I still own it in the end.

You could even have a broker that leased lots of excess address space from members for a certain period, and based on the scarcity, the size of the resource, then sub-leased it to different parties at rates according to demand at the time - kind of like the real estate rental market.

I guess the concept of leasing address space is already a standard one as most ISP's I know, and in ones I have built, we have levied a fee on the end customer for larger than the default allocation as a cost recovery method of our APNIC fees in having them in the first place.

Thoughts?


--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net


APNICのprop-050のポリシーに関して。
実際にはIPアドレス移転だけじゃなくて、IPアドレスリースということもできる。
それについて意見は？という質問。

私自身、もしprop-050が通った場合に何を考えるかというと、IPアドレスリースでした。
大規模なIP空間を持った企業グループがグループ内NICとしてグループ企業にIPを配布し、
アドレスが必要になればAPNIC等から割当を受けるか、IPアドレスを保持する他企業を買収する。
IANA--RIR--LIRの仕組みには則っているが、パワーバランスを変化させてしまう可能性もあり。
私が思いつくのだからかなりの人数が危険性を認識しているはず。
ようやく意見が出てきてよかった。