Mike, Thanks for the correction on CN and the link. I double checked of KR, TW, and VN, the three NIRs that don't allow outbound transfers, only KR has the two transfers of /22 from 2014 that I originally mentioned.
That is then less than 1% of the 303 transfers between APNIC and ARIN, and probably way less than 1% of the address space involved. This only reinforces my conclusion, the cure is worse than disease! Thanks On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David, > > > > https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer- > resources/nir-ipv4-transfer/ > > > > CNNIC allows outbound transfers now. > > So of your statistics below, really only the two /22s to KRNIC are valid > examples of transfers to one-way recipient NIRs. > > > > Frankly I believe both KRNIC and VNNIC would both actually process an > outbound transfer if one was ever presented to it. They are technically > bound in some way to APNIC policies but I doubt this has ever been > challenged. > > > > Regards, > > Mike > > > > > > *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *David > Farmer > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 23, 2017 1:57 PM > *To:* Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity > Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers > > > > > > 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 <(612)%20626-0815> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952> > =============================================== > -- =============================================== 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.
