On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Aug 18, 2017, at 05:14 , David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am a US-based company and I operate a network on multiple continents. > > > > I need to be able to move space from my home RIR of ARIN to other > regions as I expand my network overseas. > > > > The current policy that has been in effect for many years allows me to > operate my network properly -- using ARIN blocks in ARIN, APNIC blocks in > APNIC, and RIPE blocks in RIPE. The policy is predictable and I can plan > network growth around it. > > > > If this proposal passes, it will shut off transfers between ARIN and > APNIC. This will hurt my business's finances. We purchased addresses in > the ARIN region wth the intention of moving them to APNIC in the future. We > did so because the size blocks we needed were not available in the APNIC > region. So now we are talking about hurting my business for ... what > reason? How do network operations benefit from this proposal? > > Currently, there are certain registries that are operating like roach > motels for IP addresses. KR-NIC, CN-NIC are examples. > There is no evidence that this presents anything more than a theoretical problem, in fact I went and looked at APNICs transfer logs; https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/transfer-logs/ or http://ftp.apnic.net/transfers/apnic/ I found out of 281 transfers from ARIN to APNIC, there were 2 to KR and 15 to CN, and the 2 to KR were /22s and all the transfers to CN appear to be cloud providers from the best I can tell. There were also another 22 transfers from APNIC to ARIN, for a total of 303 transfers between APNIC and ARIN. You want to break 94% of the transfers between APNIC and ARIN because you don't like 6% of them. AfriNIC is discussing a similar proposal and a similar proposal was > discussed in LACNIC. > Help me understand this, we are going to break transfers to APNIC in hopes that ArfNIC and LACNIC won't pass a policy? Please explain how you expect that to work. > It is hoped that by implementing this policy it will put pressure on those > registries to be more cooperative with the global community in allowing > bi-directional transfers. > > That is how it helps network operations. Admittedly, it’s a short-term > pain for a longer term gain, but that is the intent. > In my opinion the cure you propose is fare worse than the disease you seek to remedy. This policy will seriously damage what seems like a mostly well functioning system, primarily to influence a decision that is independent of the result. I cannot support this policy. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ 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.
