Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers

[Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>]

Leo,

Working on the principle that what is written in the proposal would be 
adopted if the policy was to be adopted and what is not written in the 
proposal would not change if the policy was not to be adopted, then the 
direct answer to your question is that the condition of a minimum size 
limitation for a transfer to be undertaken in registry is a /24, and in 
the example case you cite the policy proposal as written would permit 
such a split, yes.

I am unsure myself the extent to which this current practice of minimum 
sizes for allocations and assignments in various address ranges 
administered by APNIC that you referenced is the result of adopted 
policy or APNIC operational practice. Some further clarification of this 
policy / practice question may be in order.

regards,

  Geoff



Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Geoff,
>
> On 26 Jul 2007, at 07:23, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > 4.   Details of the proposal
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > APNIC will process IPv4 address transfer requests following the
> > adoption of this proposed policy, subject to the following conditions:
> >
> > 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".
>
> I am not sure from the text whether this proposal allows address  
> blocks to be split between multiple recipients when they are already  
> at the current minimum size. For instance the longest prefix length  
> currently allocated in 222/8 is /20[1]. Would this proposal allow a / 
> 20 to be split into 16 /24s, held by 16 different organisations?
>
> Regards,
>
> Leo
>
> [1] http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy