On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 05:29:29PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > The reciprocity requirement merely requires that the policies > ALLOW transfers in both directions. > > I do not believe that allowing transfers to an RIR which will not > allow transfers out is reasonable or prudent and this belief has > nothing to do with maintenance or protection of a free pool. If we > will allow transfers between RIRs, then the policies by which they > are allowed should be fair, balanced, and symmetrical. This does > not mean that I expect the ratio of actual transfers to be balanced > or symmetrical, merely that the policies under which they are > conducted should be.
I'm with Owen on this. For folks who think asymmetric transfers in this context (co-operating RIRs) is OK, how do they feel regarding such transfers in other contexts? I'm specifically thinking of asymmetric lock-in transfers to certain NIRs who require resources used within their legislative boundary be in their registry. I'm concerned that even a conditional door open here sets a precedent for enabling such reduced resource fluidity. IMNSHO, that way leads to enabling Balkanization. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling _______________________________________________ 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.
