Hi Mike,
No, is not compatible, there is a nit in the text that precisely makes it against as John as confirmed. Nevertheless I only wanted to clarify the situation, I don’t think this is a topic for a continued discussion in ARIN ppml. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 12/10/20 22:03, "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> escribió: Hi Jordi, As I mentioned on the AFRINIC list, it would not be a problem if the AFRINIC inter-regional transfer policy retained legacy status for inbound legacy resources from ARIN. I know this because this is an option for ARIN legacy addresses received inter-regionally at RIPE. So the issue of ARIN reciprocity related to retention of legacy status for addresses received at AFRINIC is moot. I also pointed out on that list that as you say, AFRINIC policy cannot mandate ARIN’s retention of legacy status for outbound transfers from AFRINIC. I believe the current version in last call will prove to be compliant with ARIN staff’s designation as a reciprocal policy. I also believe very few transfer recipients care about legacy status because the benefits are few and the costs increasing (RPKI). It’s an insignificant point to my mind, and delaying an AFRINIC inter-regional transfer proposal in last call over it is the wrong move. Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 2:35 PM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]> Cc: Eddy Kayihura <[email protected]>; Taiwo Oyewande <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy number resources in the ARIN region (was: Re: Inter-RIR transfer Policy reciprocity with Afrinic_Resource Transfer Policy proposal) On 12 Oct 2020, at 1:37 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]> wrote: For example, I can’t imposse the condition to legacy resources transfered from AFRINIC to ARIN to lose the legacy status, because that’s against ARIN policy. Jordi - It’s probably worth elaborating a bit on this, because I do not know the origin of this statement and may have to quibble a bit with the stated reasoning. ARIN’s number resource policy applies to all resources under our administration – and in general doesn’t reference “legacy status” (i.e. the only section of ARIN’s policy manual which references legacy number resources is NRPM Section 12 / Resource Review, and that's solely to make plain that Resource Review doesn’t create any authority with respect to legacy number resources that ARIN doesn’t already have.) ARIN defines legacy number resources with some precision: "number resources issued to the resource holder or its predecessor in interest prior to ARIN’s inception on December 22, 1997’. This is done in the ARIN Registration Services Agreement (RSA) because, per direction of the ARIN Board of Trustees, ARIN has provided reduced fees for legacy resource holders and slightly different exit provision on termination for cause. Number resources are considered “legacy number resources” in the ARIN region is if they are held by original registrant (or its legal successor), and so it is highly unlikely that any resources transferred in from another region would be treated as legacy number resources (i.e. unless being brought into the region via merger/acquisition activity.) Similarly, it probably wouldn’t make sense for resources transferred to another party outside the region to be treated as “legacy number resources” (again, aside from M&A activity), but I should note that we leave it to other RIRs to define their terms and conditions of their registration services as they see fit. I understand that some regions may treat “legacy status” as an innate property of the number resource block, but that certainly is not the case in the ARIN region - again, the only way number resources can be consider "legacy number resources” is while held by the original registrant or their legal successor, so the idea of “legacy status” for the number block itself independent of the resource holder is meaningless in the ARIN region. ARIN wouldn’t find a policy proposal that required (or prohibited) “legacy status” treatment for transferred resources to be compatible, but not due to policy conflict but rather because it would could create a conflict with the very specific definition of “legacy number resources” in our registration services agreement. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
