[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published(No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)(Tore Anderson)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published(No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)(Tore Anderson)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Wilson
pwilson at apnic.net
Thu Jul 25 05:35:18 CEST 2013
Sandra and all, Some comments below. On 25/07/2013, at 7:19 AM, <sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com> wrote: > > Dear Tore, > > Thank you for inviting me to speak. > >>> I feel this statement is somewhat disingenuous. The "odd RIR out" here > is really ARIN, who is the only one to have a inter-RIR transfer policy > that has a needs-based requirement that is also applied to the other > region involved in the transfer. > > I agree 100% that ARIN is the "Odd RIR Out". Only ARIN pushes for > needs assessments and other silliness on transfers, and I agree 100% > that > companies will not be silly about spending good money on IPv4 addresses > that > may become worthless. To clarify, the entire APNIC transfer system is "needs-based". The requirement applies to the recipient of any transfer, whether it is intra- and inter-regional; and not just in the case of transfers received from ARIN. I will also add that once the policy decision was made, the implementation of needs-based transfers has been almost entirely without complaint or controversy at APNIC. The requirements for receiving a transfer are exactly the same as they were for receiving an allocation, and these are well understood within the APNIC community. The only difference is that the recipient receives a "pre-approval" rather than an actual allocation. By the way, recipients can opt to have their pre-approval listed on the APNIC website, and you can see this listing here: http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/manage-your-membership/pre-approval/listing Currently we are completing on average around 10 transfers per month, 20% being inter-regional. All the best Paul Wilson Director General. > >>> That said, there has been an inter-RIR proposal (2012-02) on the table > for a while now, but the community does not seem to want or care much > about it. I think that this is important to keep that in mind when > deciding on how much weight to give this argument against 2013-03. > > Yes, 2012-02 was on the table, but has now been withdrawn, pending the > outcome > of 2013-03. If, and hopefully when, 2013-03 is implemented, then my > intention is to put in place > a new inter-RIR proposal for the RIPE community, at a time the community > feels is > appropriate, which allows for transfer of **legacy** IP's currently in > the ARIN registry. > As you probably know, legacy IP's were issued to resource holders prior > to the > creation of ARIN in 1997, and thus legacy holders can request RIPE to > register > their IP's, if the RIPE community agrees, rather than ARIN, as the > registry. > Then the inter-RIR transfer of legacy IP's from ARIN to RIPE can proceed > regardless of needs justification, as the legacy IP's would be in the > RIPE > registry rather than the ARIN registry. We would have to discuss the > mechanics as it might better be regarded as an inter-RIR transfer from a > legacy > ARIN registry element to a RIPE LIR. This is much like the ERX > transfers of the > past, but to a purchasing LIR. > > >>> I'm not at all principally opposed to inter-RIR transfers, so if the > author of 2012-02 would add a "need compatibility clause" to the > proposed inter-RIR policy, I would have nothing against that. In other > words, if it would be possible to make the need evaluation a voluntary > thing that you only had to do if transferring addresses from the ARIN > region - fine. Then those 5 LIRs, and those 5 only, could subject > themselves to whatever demands the ARIN community might have, while the > rest of us would be free of the IPv4 bureaucracy. Win-win. > > No, the author of 2012-02 is strongly opposed to needs justification so > I > would not be interested in adding needs compatibility to inter-RIR > transfers. > I would much rather focus on legacy IP's for inter-RIR transfers, > intra-RIR > transfers within RIPE, and will support any discussion within the > community > to bring modern economics to ARIN. > > Best Regards, and Thanks for the Invitation, > Sandra Brown > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2880 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130725/3d9a38c6/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published(No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)(Tore Anderson)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]