On Sep 6, 2017, at 15:10 , [email protected] wrote:
Now that discussion reveals that "IPv4 Inventory", refers to the total number
of IPv4 addresses that a specific RIR has under its management, and not the amount of
IPv4 addresses remaining for assignment, I will state the problems I see with the
proposal. However, I remain open minded and am asking questions in order to make up my
mind.
If any of the history of numbering management that I state below is wrong,
please let me know, as it might change my viewpoint.
1) Originally there was effectively only one RIR worldwide.
2) This original RIR's Resources were placed under control of ARIN.
3) When each of the RIR's other than ARIN were formed, all resources
that were assigned to entities within the region of the new RIR, that
were under management of ARIN, or the RIR which previously managed the
space (RIPE to AFRINIC in that case) were transfered to the new RIR.
4) The Previous RIR's who controled resources before the formation of
LACNIC or AFRINIC did not have a policy in place that discriminated
against any portion of the world, and would if presented with a request
for IPv4 resources, would process that request using the same policy
that was used for resources assigned in the remaining portions of that
RIR's Territory.
With each of these things said, I now draw some conclusions. Specifically, it
is not North America's or ARIN's fault that LACNIC and AFRINIC has less
resources under management than ARIN or RIPE or APNIC. Had networks needing
resources existed during this time, and all the way past their formation up
until that date that IANA ran out of /8's, that RIR could have received IPv4
addresses from the free pool on an equal basis. While the original Class A
networks were given out a lot more loosely than ARIN's standards, this did not
change the fact that IANA had a free pool after these original Class A networks
were assigned, and did provide additional /8's to any RIR who could show that
they had exhausted their free pool below the standard that was applied to all 5
RIR's.
In my opinion the only reason that LACNIC and AFRINIC did not have as many
/8's, was the growth in the APNIC region compared to all other regions, which
during that time exceeded every other RIR, including ARIN. In fact, it was
APNIC's request for more space that triggered the exhaustion of the free pool.
Technically, when LACNIC and AFRINIC received their final /8, it was not
totally fair to the other RIR's with more addresses under management. In fact,
this final non proportional oversupply at AFRINIC is likely the only reason
that AFRINIC is the only RIR with a general free pool. Instead of a full /8 to
each region, maybe this should have been done more proportional to each
region's total address space under management.
For a market based solution to IPv4 addresses, addresses need to be able to
flow both ways. AFRINIC and LACNIC can argue that we are the small guys, and
we need to be protected against transfers out. However, I can just as easily
argue that ARIN is being used as a worldwide piggy bank of IPv4 addresses and
should also adopt an anti-transfer out policy. As long as things move both
ways, we can argue that the market effect is important, but for this to work,
it must be bidirectional everywhere. While ARIN is the leader in supplying
directed transfer addresses, market conditions could change worldwide, causing
more transfers from another RIR. For an example, say if China were to require
ALL internet to use IPv6, and forbid the use of IPv4 in their country, a large
number of IPv4 addresses allocated to China would suddenly be available on the
transfer market.
Some similar event that is now unknown could drive the IPv4 addresses of the
LACNIC and AFRINIC into the market, and if this policy were adopted would be
unfair to the markets that would be forbidden from these addresses being in the
market because of the lack of a bidirectional transfer rule.
My gut tells me that noone should get a pass on bidirectional transfers, and I am leaning
NO at this time, but could be convinced otherwise for the proper reason. I do not think
"Past Discrimination" is that reason. The true past problem was lack of past
network growth, vs other regions.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, ARIN wrote:
The following has been revised:
* Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR
Transfers
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_4.html
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate
the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with
ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy
Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
* Technically Sound
* Supported by the Community
The PDP can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
Regards,
Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
Version Date: 6 September 2017
Problem Statement:
AFRINIC and LACNIC are currently considering one-way inter-RIR transfer
proposals. Those RIR communities feel a one-way policy a policy that allows
network operators in their regions to obtain space from another region and
transfer it into AFRINIC and LACNIC may best meet the needs of the operators in
that region.
ARIN staff, in reply to an inquiry from AFRINIC, have formally indicated that
ARINs 8.4 policy language will not allow ARIN to participate in such one-way
transfers. The staff formally indicate to AFRINIC that the word reciprocal in
8.4 prohibits ARIN from allowing ARIN-registered space to transfer directly to
AFRINIC (in this context).
ARIN as a community should recognize that other RIR operator communities have
different needs than we do. We should recognize that:
- network operators in AFRINIC in LACNIC have need to obtain space in the
market;
- have reasons they think are important to not allow two-way transfers; and
- we should understand that the history of the RIR system has led to LACNIC and
AFRINIC having multiple orders of magnitude less IPv4 address space than ARIN
does.
Policy statement:
Add the following sentence after the first sentence of NRPM 8.4:
Inter-RIR transfers may take place to an RIR with a non-reciprocal inter-RIR
transfer policy only when the recipient RIR has an IPv4 total inventory less
than the average (mean) of the IPv4 total inventory among all of the RIRs.
Timetable for implementation: Upon the ratification of any inter-RIR transfer
policy at another RIR that is one-way as described in the problem statement.
_______________________________________________
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.
