APNIC-sig-policy@May 22, 2009

Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:39:36 +1000
Subject: [sig-policy] APNIC EC returns prop-050: IPv4 address
transfers to Policy SIG


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC EC returns "IPv4 address transfers" to Policy SIG
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear colleagues

The APNIC EC (Executive Council), at its meeting on 21 May 2009,
returned prop-050, "IPv4 address transfers", to the Policy SIG for
further discussion. Minutes from this meeting will be available after
they have been adopted at the June 2009 EC meeting.

Below is the official notification from the EC:

This is a response to the Policy Development Manager from the
APNIC Executive Council.

The APNIC Policy SIG Chair formally requested the APNIC EC to
endorse Proposal-50 on the 20th May.

According to the APNIC Policy Development Process: "The EC, in
their capacity as representatives of the membership, will be asked
to endorse the consensus proposals arising from the OPM and the
SIG mailing lists for implementation at the next EC meeting. In
reviewing the proposals for implementation, the EC may refer
proposals back to the SIG for further discussion with clearly
stated reasons."

In its meeting of the 21st May the APNIC Executive Council has
decided to refer Proposal-50 back to the Policy SIG. The reason
for this referral is that the EC is not of the opinion that the
proposal has gathered a clear consensus in favour of the policy,
and the EC notes that the proposal, taken in isolation, has
engendered significant concerns within the community relating to
the adequacy of safeguards against potential abuse as a
consequence of implementation this policy.

regards,

Geoff Huston
Executive Secretary to the APNIC EC
for the APNIC EC


For a detailed history of the proposal, see:




Regards


IPv4アドレス移転ポリシーはAPNIC ECの会議で差し戻しに決定。
もう少し詳細な議論が必要でしたね。やはり。

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。

APNIC-sig-policy@Apr 14, 2009

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:23:03 +0200
From: Sander Steffann
Subject: [sig-policy] Prop-050 concerns from RIPE
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Message-ID: <8CBBB51E-9D25-4FED-B966-5DF280070303@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

Hello sig-policy,

As co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to
express our concern about prop-050.

We understand that the proposal as it is currently written and is in
last call, requires no justification from an organisation that will
receive a transfer from another organisation. It also states that the
implementation of the proposal, if accepted, is immediate. In other
words, as soon as the APNIC community accepts the proposal and the
secretariat implements it, it will be a policy in effect.

We know that there are other policy proposals (prop-071 and 072) to
prevent abuse of prop-050, but we are still concerned about this
because of the possibilities of abuse before prop-071 and 072 are
implemented (assuming they reach consensus)

One case that worries us is the case where Organisation A receives an
allocation from APNIC, transfers it to Organisation B, request another
allocation from APNIC, transfer it again, etc. This will result in
increased usage rate of the APNIC address pools. As a result APNIC
will need to request more address space from IANA, and IANA will run
out of IPv4 addresses quicker. This kind of hoarding has effects
outside of the APNIC region.

It might never happen, but in theory someone could do this if I
understand the policy correctly. The possibility of draining the IANA
pool is what worries us.

We also understand that the current text of the proposal enables Inter-
RIR transfers. Prop-050 states that this will happen "following the
policies of all the respective RIRs". We are not clear on how APNIC
will implement this and what effects this will have on other RIRs. We
don't have an Inter-RIR transfer policy at this time. What would
happen (for example) if an organisation approaches APNIC with a
request to transfer RIPE address space to an APNIC RIR. Can APNIC
still prevent that transfer from happening? If not, this would make it
possible that space from other regions is hoarded in the APNIC service
region.

Inter-RIR transfers is not even a concept yet that is discussed in
other regions. Because it is "between" RIRs, we believe it is a matter
that requires coordination and discussion beyond a specific region. We
think a globally-coordinated policy discussion will be best to have
for this kind of topic.

I know that a lot of these issues have already been raised on the
mailing list in the past months, but I hope you can understand our
concern. Implementing prop-050 before prop-071 and/or prop-072 can be
implemented leaves a big loop hole that could have effects outside the
APNIC region.

Thank you for listening,
Sander Steffann
RIPE Address Policy Working Group co-chair


欧州地域のアドレスポリシーWGの副議長からAPNICポリシーSIGのprop-050に対する懸念の表明。
APNIC内のアドレス移転だけならまだしも、世界中の人がRIRをまたぐアドレス移転を
考えていることもあって、隣の地域のポリシー議論をキャッチアップする必要が出てきました。
APNICメンバーでも他所の地域のポリシー議論に懸念があれば積極的に発言しないとね。

APNIC-sig-policy@Mar 10, 2009

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:47:12 +0900
From:
Subject: [sig-policy] another backdoor and safeguard for prop-050
To:
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"

Dear all,

First of all, I'm strongly supporting current prop-050 and not trying to stop it.
But, I also think it is very welcome for me (and maybe for everybody)
if it will become better by complimentary proposal or revised one.

BTW, I found another backdoor to get and sell address space continuously
which cannot be prevented even by previous prop-050.
Also, I found simple safeguard for it (and for other backdoors, I believe).

Backdoor scenario:
1. start up company-A
2. become an APNIC member and request IPv4 address space
3. sell whole of allocated address space and unsubscribe from APNIC
4. start up company-B and do same things
If this cheater can find enough number of hostmasters for each company,
he/she can get and sell address space continuously.

Safeguard for this backdoor:
Even previous prop-050 cannot prevent it since there is no future request from same company.
However, it can be prevented if we will add following condition as a safeguard.
"Allocated IPv4 address space from any RIR/NIR within recent 24 months cannot be transfered
based on this policy" (Yes, just opposite way from previous one)
This safeguard also works well for other backdoors and more harmless than previous one
(since it doesn't prevent "Oh I made a mistake and wanna try again"), I believe.

I'm very welcome for comments and other ideas.

Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.

実は彼ら(ソフトバンクグループ)は使い切れない程のIPv4アドレスを持っている。
ソフトバンクBB、IPレボリューション(東京メタリック、大阪メタリック、名古屋メタリック)、ODN、Jens、ITJ、ITJIT、平成電電、PSINetJapan、東京インターネット、デジタルインフラ、エクソダス、アバブネット、グローバルオンライン、ケーブルアンドワイヤレスジャパン、ヤフー
既にない企業体もあるのでその分ダブついているはず。IPを返却したかどうかは不明。
他にも以前43/8のIPv6移行用アドレスも使っていたはず。

IP枯渇期にIPアドレスを取ることに注力してポリシー議論をしているように見えるが、
実はIPアドレスを販売することを見越して議論をしているのではないかと推測。
そう考えると他のビジネス競合社を潰すための制限かも、と勘ぐってしまう。