Elvis and All,
Regarding inter-RIR transfer with ARIN, Sec 8.4 of ARIN NRPM says,
8.4. Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients
Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the
transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.
So, it means APNIC policy should be accepted as "reciprocal, compatible,
needs-based policies" by ARIN community
to keep Inter-RIR transfer between ARIN and APNIC.
> The policy proposal would remove DN for transfers between APNIC members.
Basically, no DN for Intra-RIR transfers and DN verified by the receiving RIR if
they have it in policy.
> It would also permit transfers from ARIN or RIPE NCC to APNIC (keeping the DN
in policy only if the sending RIR still has such a policy).
Can somebody participating ARIN discussion actively clarify whether this
idea is still reciprocal with ARIN NRPM
which requires demonstrated needs for both of Intra-RIR transfer and
Inter-RIR transfer?
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
APNIC Policy SIG Co-Chair
On 14/05/27 10:54, "Elvis Velea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I agree with Skeeve that we should start a discussion about Demonstrated Need
> (DN).
>
> let me try and make a summary of current changes to transfers policies:
>
> A. RIPE region
> currently the RIPE region does no longer have a DN for Intra-RIR transfers.
> Policy proposal 2013-03 has cleanup the IPv4 policy and removed the DN for
> anything except the request of the last /22 from the RIPE NCC.
> Additionally, the Inter-RIR policy proposal 2012-02 will be withdrawn and a
> new policy proposal will be made shortly, as announced during RIPE68. [1]
>
> The new policy proposal will be made soon and it will say that:
> - for transfers to other RIRs:
> "When internet resources are transferred to another RIR, then RIPE NCC will
> work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the receiving LIR."
> - for transfers into the RIPE region:
> "RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfill any requirements of the
> sending RIR"
>
> In other words, the transfer into the RIPE region will have DN only if the
> sending RIR will have such a policy. There will be no DN requirement for
> transfers from the RIPE region. However, the receiving RIR will need to
> approve based on it's policies.
>
> B. ARIN region
>
> There is, indeed, policy proposal 2014-14 (removal of DN for any transfers
> smaller than /16 per year). but I have not seen any discussion on it. If this
> policy proposal is approved (and that is a big if) I think that 8.4 in the
> ARIN NRPM could be interpreted as: /16 or lower per year can be done without
> DN. However, I hope that an ARIN representative may clarify.
>
> C. APNIC region
>
> APNIC had no DN policy when it reached the last /8 but it has been added back
> just because ARIN required it.
>
>
> Considering the latest developments, I would actually like to work on
> proposing a policy change in APNIC before APNIC38.
>
> The policy proposal would remove DN for transfers between APNIC members.
> Basically, no DN for Intra-RIR transfers and DN verified by the receiving RIR
> if they have it in policy.
> It would also permit transfers from ARIN or RIPE NCC to APNIC (keeping the
> DN in policy only if the sending RIR still has such a policy).
>
> What would the community think of such idea/policy proposal?
>
> Kind regards,
> Elvis
>
> [1]
> https://ripe68.ripe.net/presentations/292-RIPE-2014_Inter-RIR_Transfers.pdf
>
> On 19/05/14 03:01, Dean Pemberton wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for that Adam.
>>
>> So there we go...
>>
>> We decided that we didn't need DN for transfers (prop-50). Then we
>> decided that we needed it again (prop-96) so that ARIN would play with
>> us.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Adam Gosling <[email protected]>
>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Skeeve, Dean
>>>
>>> The removal of DN in APNIC transfers was originally endorsed under
>>> prop-50, see below. For a very short time after IPv4 exhaustion APNIC
>>> actually operated under this policy before prop-096: Maintaining
>>> demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase
>>> added it back in.
>>>
>>> --
>>> prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
>>> http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0009/12420/prop-050-v005.txt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
>>>
>>> - Prior to the exhaustion of APNIC's IPv4 space (i.e. prior to the
>>> use of the "final /8" allocation measures) recipients of
>>> transfers will be required to justify their need for address
>>> space. After this time there is no requirement for any form of
>>> evaluation of requirements for eligibility.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Also of note is that the ARIN AC recently accepted "ARIN-prop-204 Removing
>>> Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft Policy.
>>> <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-May/028486.html>. As Bill
>>> rightly notes, this is a very early stage in the ARIN PDP.
>>>
>>> The status page for the proposal is
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_14.html
>>>
>>> This proposal would change the DN for ARIN recipients only. ARIN’s policy
>>> on Inter-RIR transfers may be found here
>>> <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight4> It states that
>>> "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the
>>> transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.”
>>>
>>> Currently the conditions on the recipient of a transfer are: "The
>>> conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be defined by
>>> the policies of the receiving RIR.”
>>>
>>> So my understanding is that while APNIC is (of course) free to change it’s
>>> transfers DN at any time, the ARIN Secretariat must be satisfied APNIC has
>>> a “compatible, needs-based” policy, or it would not be able to authorise
>>> the transfer.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Adam Gosling
>>> Internet Policy Development Consultant email: [email protected]
>>> APNIC
>>> sip: [email protected]http://www.apnic.net
>>> phone: +61 7
>>> 3858 3100
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/05/2014 10:05 am, "Dean Pemberton" <[email protected]>
>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The details of APNIC transfer policy prop-95 removed the requirement
>>>> for the recipient or transfers to show DN.
>>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-095
>>>>
>>>> ------ From the Policy ------
>>>>
>>>> 5.2.3 Conditions on the recipient of the transfer
>>>>
>>>> The conditions of the transfer defined by RIR where the
>>>> recipient organization holds an account, will apply to the
>>>> recipient of the transfer:
>>>>
>>>> - For transfers from an account holder of the counterpart
>>>> RIR(*) to APNIC account holder, the conditions defined
>>>> in APNIC transfer policy at the time of the transfer
>>>> will apply
>>>>
>>>> - For transfers from APNIC account holder an account
>>>> holder of to the counterpart RIR(*), the conditions
>>>> defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the
>>>> time of the transfer will apply
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------
>>>>
>>>> prop-96 quickly places it back.
>>>> https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------ From the Policy ------
>>>>
>>>> 1. Introduction
>>>> ----------------
>>>>
>>>> This is a proposal to maintain the requirement for recipients of IPv4
>>>> transfers to justify their need for address space beyond the current
>>>> allocation phase and into the final /8 phase.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Summary of the current problem
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> The current APNIC transfer policy removes the requirement to
>>>> demonstrate a need for transferred IPv4 addresses after the final /8
>>>> phase begins.
>>>>
>>>> However, this removal of justification of need once APNIC enters the
>>>> final /8 phase will make APNIC the only RIR that does not require a
>>>> demonstrated need to be shown for an IPv4 transfer to be approved.
>>>>
>>>> If an inter-RIR transfer policy, such as prop-095, were to be approved,
>>>> given that any transfers would be conducted according to the transfer
>>>> policy of the source RIR, it would disadvantage APNIC if other RIRs
>>>> were to be able to transfer IPv4 addresses from APNIC without requiring
>>>> any justification.
>>>>
>>>> Contrast this with transfers where APNIC is the recipient of the
>>>> transfer, and must follow the transfer policy of the source RIR. Since
>>>> all other RIRs require justification in transfers, it would be more
>>>> difficult to have transfers of addresses into the APNIC region than it
>>>> would for addresses to be transferred out of the APNIC region.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, having no justification requirement in the final /8 phase
>>>> is raising concerns in some RIR regions and making them reluctant to
>>>> recognize any inter-RIR transfer policy with APNIC. Therefore, it is
>>>> possible that even if APNIC were to adopt prop-095, no other RIR may be
>>>> willing to engage in such inter-RIR transfers with APNIC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Dean,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please remind me which policy number that was... clearly I
>>>>> missed
>>>>> something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Skeeve
>>>>>
>>>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
>>>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business
>>>>> [email protected] ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>>>>
>>>>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>>>>
>>>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Dean Pemberton <[email protected]>
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We still have DN for one reason and one reason only.
>>>>>> ARIN requires it as part of their transfer policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know this because the community already removed the requirement for
>>>>>> DN
>>>>>> for IPv4 addresses post exhaustion once, and then quickly had to put
>>>>>> it back
>>>>>> in because we stood to miss out on ARIN transfers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So to my mind the community has already spoken and this is what it has
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We don't want/care about DN for post exhaustion IPv4 addresses. We've
>>>>>> already voted to remove it once. We *DO* care about transfers from
>>>>>> ARIN, so
>>>>>> we put DN back. Thats the only reason we have DN."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So here you go community... am I wrong with that statement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]>
>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dean,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am simply asking for opinions so that when/if something happens in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> other regions that the APNIC region has already discussed it, or at
>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>> had opening discussions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think that we should avoid any discussion on the matter before
>>>>>>> something happens and be reactionary? or seek to open a discussion
>>>>>>> and get
>>>>>>> the feeling from the community?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lately there has been a lot of comments on involving the community
>>>>>>> more... which is what I am trying to facilitate by bringing up the
>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...Skeeve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
>>>>>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business
>>>>>>> [email protected] ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>>>>>>> <http://www.theispguy.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Dean Pemberton
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Too true Bill,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me the trigger points for any further conversation on DN are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ARIN changes or relaxes its policy on requiring DN for transfers.
>>>>>>> *OR*
>>>>>>> APNIC members decide they no longer need transfers from ARIN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm happy to talk about one of those things (the second), the first
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> none of my business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dean
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Bill Woodcock <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 18, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ARIN, RIPE and APNIC all have demonstrated need at present.
>>>>>>> RIPE and ARIN are having discussions about removing or lowering
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, RIPE is. I wouldn’t say that’s true of ARIN. I mean, there
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> always people talking about stuff, but there’s a difference
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> between people
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> talking and a policy proposal that has any support or chance of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> becoming
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> future policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni
>>>>>>> c-talk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dean
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni
>>>>>>> c-talk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dean
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic
>>>>>> -talk
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dean
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>>> [email protected]http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-t
>>>> alk
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
