For those wondering: Source of my country ranks below: http://www.geoba.se/population.php?pc=world
Owen > On Sep 8, 2017, at 20:46 , Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 13:46 , David Farmer <far...@umn.edu >> <mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote: >> >> Cathy, >> >> Yes, in some ways it would be more straight forward to just say LACNIC and >> AFRINIC are allowed an exception to the reciprocity requirement. However, >> that policy would contain only the facts of the situation. Whereas this >> policy contains quantifiable reasoning why LACNIC and AFRINIC are exempted >> from the reciprocity requirement and why APNIC and RIPE are not. > > Actually, if you wanted to do that, I think you’d have somehow account for > population differences between the various regions served as I think there is > a radically different fraction of the population of earth in each of the > RIR’s service regions. Since APNIC includes both China (1.37 bn) and India > (1.28 bn) and in fact 18 of the top 100 countries > by population, I’m pretty sure it is well ahead of most of the others. The > number 3 nation on the list is the US at 328 Mil. By the time you get to 14, > you’re looking at populations under 100 Mil. Of the top 15, we have: APNIC: 8 > (CN, IN, ID, PK, BD, JP, PH, VN) , ARIN: 1 (US), AfriNIC: 3 (NG, ET, EG) , > RIPE: 1 (RU), LACNIC: 2 (MX, BR). > >> To be honest, I didn't want the reciprocity requirement in the original >> transfer policy to being with, because of the optics of this very situation >> with LACNIC and AFRINIC. However, I didn't push the issue with the original >> transfer policy because I knew it would be several year before LACNIC and >> AFRINIC got to the point of approving a transfer policy of any kind. So, >> when this issue with LACNIC and AFRINIC came up I thought obvious thing to >> do was to eliminate the reciprocity requirement all together. However, I >> really like this compromise as well as the reasoning that comes with it. > > For many of the same reasons, I oppose this policy. That’s fine, men of good > conscience can look at the same set of facts and draw different conclusions > in good faith. > >> There is absolutely no reason for transfers with APNIC and RIPE to not be on >> a reciprocal basis. However, with LACNIC and AFRINIC I feel there should be >> room for some nuance. LACNIC and AFRINIC have received the short-end of the >> stick, so to speak. There was no conspiracy or wrongdoing that caused this >> result, but it is a stark fact when you look at the numbers. I therefore >> believe these facts should afford LACNIC and AFRINIC some latitude to decide >> for themselves how best to move forward. > > LACNIC and AfriNIC for a variety of reasons are late to the party for IPv4. I > will venture to say that I have spent as much time working with and in the > AfriNIC region as any other member of the AC, possibly more. I will also > venture to say that I have a pretty good understanding of the network > situation in the LACNIC region. > > The reality is that if we permit a unilateral transfer policy, we are, in > fact, encouraging them to disable their networks with an even larger IPv4 > legacy and greater IPv4 technical debt. > >> In the long-run I totally believe LACNIC and AFRINIC should approve >> reciprocal transfer policies. However, we need to give them room to decide >> this for themselves, it is arrogant and inconsiderate of the facts for us to >> dictate a reciprocal transfer policy to them. If they feel they need to >> start with a one-way transfer policy, there is logic to such a strategy, and >> the current facts seem to justify at least some caution on their part. > > We aren’t dictating anything to them. We are saying that if they want access > to the addresses currently in this region, then it has to be on an equal > footing with an equivalent bilateral policy. I see nothing arrogant or unfair > about that and claiming that it is flies in the face of the facts of the > matter. > >> Finally, the numbers show we have more than enough room to be magnanimous in >> this situation, I believe we should give LACNIC and AFRINIC room to >> maneuver, and choose their own way forward. > > They are perfectly free to choose whatever way forward they wish to choose > without any changes in ARIN policy. > > Owen > >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Cj Aronson <c...@daydream.com >> <mailto:c...@daydream.com>> wrote: >> Okay so this formula.. does it just give us Afrinic and Lacnic right? So >> why don't we just say that? Since there are only 5 RIRs it seems that maybe >> a formula isn't needed? >> >> >> {Ô,Ô} >> (( )) >> ◊ ◊ >> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:35 PM, ARIN <i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net>> >> 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 >> <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 <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 >> <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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net >> <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >> Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any >> issues. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net >> <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >> Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any >> issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> =============================================== >> David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu >> <mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu> >> 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net >> <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
