> On Jan 23, 2017, at 8:23 PM, Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joe, > > The asymmetric transfers you mention below are allowed from my understanding. > > RIR<->RIR->NIR
It is my understanding that APNIC policy allows these transfers where it is RIR<->APNIC->NIR. I do not know of any other circumstances where such asymmetric policies are allowed. To the best of my knowledge, the current only NIRs implementing such asymmetric policy are CNNIC and VNNIC. > > I remember this being discussed at the last ARIN meeting. If staff could > confirm my basic diagram that would be appreciated. > > I believe at least for LACNIC and AFRNIC there should be a waiver if > requested, not a removal of reciprocity from the entire section. I would not oppose (though, neither would I support) a temporary waiver, but I would want to see either hard criteria or a hard deadline when the waiver expires. I strongly oppose removing the reciprocity from policy for the reasons previously stated. Owen > > Kevin Blumberg > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Provo > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 12:29 PM > To: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 05:29:29PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> The reciprocity requirement merely requires that the policies ALLOW >> transfers in both directions. >> >> I do not believe that allowing transfers to an RIR which will not >> allow transfers out is reasonable or prudent and this belief has >> nothing to do with maintenance or protection of a free pool. If we >> will allow transfers between RIRs, then the policies by which they are >> allowed should be fair, balanced, and symmetrical. This does not mean >> that I expect the ratio of actual transfers to be balanced or >> symmetrical, merely that the policies under which they are conducted >> should be. > > I'm with Owen on this. > > For folks who think asymmetric transfers in this context (co-operating RIRs) > is OK, how do they feel regarding such transfers in other contexts? I'm > specifically thinking of asymmetric lock-in transfers to certain NIRs who > require resources used within their legislative boundary be in their > registry. I'm concerned that even a conditional door open here sets a > precedent for enabling such reduced resource fluidity. > > IMNSHO, that way leads to enabling Balkanization. > > Cheers! > > Joe > > -- > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
