On 28 Nov 2004, at 20:19, David Robb wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
When you figure out the mechanism to change the terms under which resources were allocated long before APNIC ever existed, you should let them know. Be sure to remember that the mechanism probably needs to work in every legal jurisdiction on the planet.
Isn't that exactly what's happening here though? IP ranges that were allocated before APNIC existed are potentially[1] having their terms changed.
I'm not sure exactly what's happening with the NZGATE assignments. It seems possible that nothing new is happening at all, and what people are upset about is fallout from the recently-implemented privacy policy.
[1] I say potentially because there seems to be a lot of confusion about what's actually changing - some whois records for privacy reasons, "ownership" of IP ranges, or what.
Yeah.
I'm not sure anyone (I'm not anyway) is advocating a change in APNIC policy to start handing out /29s to anyone who wants them. The issue at hand seems to be the handling of swamp space and how to bring it into line with current policy.
I don't think that's the issue; if anything, the issue is whether the space in question is really swamp, allocated provider-independent, or whether it was assigned as provider-aggregatable by an entity which was later acquired by Telecom. Everything that I have heard and seen tells me that it's swamp. If you took the perspective that they are all Telecom NZ assignments, however, then it's easy to see how they could be pulled back from non-Telecom customers without any suggestion of retroactive policy application.
Might I therefore make a suggestion (which I'll also be making directly to APNIC) that the administration of the swamp space be done in a "don't let it get any worse" sort of method.
More than likely the best place to make your suggestion is to the policy sig through the mailing list. That's a very good place to get policy clarified, and to propose policy changes if you think they are necessary. APNIC doesn't set policy itself; the members do. Joe