Re: [sig-policy] sig-policy Digest, Vol 57, Issue 3
A quick question, do we have problem with mailing list? Coz on APNIC website
it says that prop-70 was submitted to policy SIG mailing list but it is not
发件人: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.
apnic.net] 代表 sig-policy-request at lists dot apnic dot net
发送时间: 2009年2月4日 10:00
收件人: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
主题: sig-policy Digest, Vol 57, Issue 3
Send sig-policy mailing list submissions to
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sig-policy-request at lists dot apnic dot net
You can reach the person managing the list at
sig-policy-owner at lists dot apnic dot net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sig-policy digest..."
1. Re: prop-069-v002: Global policy proposal for the allocation
of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries (Gaurab Raj Upadhaya)
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:45:40 +0000
From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab at lahai dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-069-v002: Global policy proposal for
the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
To: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
Cc: APNIC Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Message-ID: <4987DA04.5040800 at lahai dot com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I agree in principle on the policy, i am concerned, and agree with Terry
, about the operational impact of such a change.
How will rDNS be maintained. how'll the whois database be
updated/maintained and as such.
If the policy addresses these issues, I think it'll help in avoiding
confusion in future to all the RIR and IANA staffs implementing the policy.
Terry Manderson wrote:
> On 03/02/2009, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Dear SIG members
>> Version 2 of the proposal "Global policy proposal for the
>> allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" has been
>> sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the
>> Policy SIG at APNIC 27 in Manila, Philippines, 23-27 February 2009.
>> The proposal's history can be found at:
> It would be nice if there was a 'diff' function in the website to make
> it easier to see what changes have been made between policy versions.
>> This new version of the proposal contains a new section, "Definitions"
>> inserted after section 1, "Introduction".
>> We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
>> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> Generally speaking I think the proposal is sensible. It provides for a
> cleaner way to address resource allocation (ie in the natural
> hierarchical model that exists now) when demand for ipv4 creates
> shortages. I like that it reduces the reliance on inter-RIR transfers,
> as new comers can apply for address space, as apposed to a market-
> seeking approach. Provided of course that there are resources
> available in the recovered IPv4 pool.
>> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> How this policy affects the ancillary functions surrounding the IP
> address space.
> One that (and there are others I'm sure) comes to mind is reverse
> Is the intent of this policy to also have the in-addr.arpa delegation
> for example 202.in-addr.arpa is delegated to APNIC. For the purposes
> here lets say that 202.12.28/23 was handed back to the IANA at the
> quarterly interval. Would the RIR then have the DNS delegation for
> 202.in-addr.arpa amended such that it omits that /23 enabling the
> future allocated RIR to advise IANA the delegation details? And
> similarly what then is the expectation for the member who receives
> that address space?
> Further, while the policy does limit its scope to the relationship
> between the IANA and the RIR, in this hierarchical world of resource
> allocation surely there would be downward pressure for the same
> behaviours towards NIRs and LIRs.
> I think I would like to see a policy that dovetails into this for the
> remainder of the hierarchy.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
End of sig-policy Digest, Vol 57, Issue 3