I would like to see it a little more nuanced than just the removal of reciprocity.
I took the following statistics from the NRO website (https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRO_Q3_2016-2.pdf) Number of /8 Assigned to Regions ARIN 36 AFRINIC 5 LACNIC 9 RIPE NCC 35 APNIC 45 I would prefer a sentence, that allows for the relaxing of the reciprocal rule, in the event the gaining RIR is below the global average in IPv4 space. Kevin Blumberg From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:14 PM To: Mike Burns <[email protected]> Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility I would agree with this, and would support a policy proposal to remove the "reciprocal" requirement in ARIN inter-RIR transfer policy, leaving the "compatible, needs-based" requirement. It looks like this would simply be a one-word change, removing "reciprocal," from the first sentence of 8.4. -Scott On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi David, An inbound-only policy is also under development at LACNIC and will hit the discussion list there next week. RIPE has officially said they will accept the provisions of the AFRINIC inbound policy and will send RIPE addresses to AFRINIC should the AFRINIC policy be implemented as written. RIPE has told me they will treat any pending LACNIC policy the same way, if the operative language is similar. LACNIC also has a relatively rigorous needs-test for transfers, AFAIK they even require the use of NAT. I think the ARIN community must take notice of the relative superabundance of IPv4 space in the region and how less address-rich regions must feel in this age of exhaust. The recent IPv4 market analysis at RIPE indicates that the transfer market is fueled to a large extent by legacy address acting as supply. These legacy addresses are again much more abundant in ARIN than they are in AFRINIC or LACNIC. My personal experience is that the LACNIC transfer market is suffering from a lack of supply, and buyers are being asked to pay higher prices due to scarcity. I believe that it is in the best interests of the Internet for there to be a global market in IPv4 addresses. Unfortunately the address-poor regions feel shortchanged, and they view any two-way policy as a potential to lose some of their paltry amount to richer regions. As a half-way step towards a truly global market, accepting that some regions (and some NIRs) will not allow outbound transfers today, I believe ARIN should join RIPE and remove the language about reciprocity, while maintaining the requirement for compatible needs testing. Regards, Mike Burns -----Original Message----- From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of David R Huberman Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:37 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility Last week, ARIN staff sent to this list a copy of their response to AFRINIC on inter-RIR transfer policy compatability. The AFRINIC community is considering a one-way transfer policy as a bootstrap for the few years until they reach IPv4 runout, at which point it would aim to become two-way. I feel like as a member of the internet community, that ARIN (we - us - the PPML participants) should be accepting that an RIR in a different region has different needs than we do. I think we should allow African internet operators to obtain blocks from sellers in the ARIN region, and transfer them to AFRINIC to meet their needs. The AFRINIC inbound transfer policy is very ARIN-like. It's needs-basis, and the language looks very similar to 8.2 and 8.3 language we've had at ARIN for a very long time. cf. http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1803 -inbound-transfer-policy That's my opinion. What's yours? Thanks, David On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, ARIN wrote: > To PPML - > > As a result of policy discussions in the AFRINIC region, ARIN is > providing the following to information: > > On 30 September 2016 ARIN received a query from AFRINIC requesting an > assessment on the compatibility of AFRINIC proposed > 1803-inbound-transfer-policy with ARIN policy. On 6 October 2016 ARIN > responded with the following assessment: > > Based on ARINb _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
