All, Sorry duplicate copy, but let me share it as I believe it is helpful for understanding current situation about demonstration needs in Inter-RIR transfer.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Co-chair On 14/06/06 15:35, "Masato Yamanishi" <[email protected]> wrote: > Elvis and all, > > Sorry for late reply, but I had a chance to talk with some of ARIN AC members > and ARIN staff, so let me share their feedbacks. > > 1. It is ARIN staffs' responsibility to show the implications of current ARIN > policy and they think current proposed idea on apnic-talk, > which removes DN only from Intra-RIR transfer, is not compatible with > ARIN transfer policy as it is, > since ARIN requires DN for both of Inter and Intra RIR transfer case. > > 2. Even if ARIN staff would think it is compatible, ARIN community may raise a > issue that it can be used to milk ARIN's remaining pool. > So, adding more restrictions for Intra-RIR transfer of address spaces > which were transferred from other RIRs (e.g. DN requirement, 12months > restriction) > may be helpful to relax their concern. > > 3. ARIN's concern for milking is applicable only before the exhaustion of > their remaining pool and it is expected to happen > at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. So, we may see > different discussion after that. > > I hope it helps your understanding and discussion. > > Rgs, > Masato Yamanishi > > > On 14/06/04 7:39, "Elvis Velea" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Masato, >> >> I was really hoping that someone from ARIN will respond to either my e-mail >> or yours. >> >> Anyway, while we are waiting for them to respond, I would like to notify the >> community on the latest developments in the RIPE region. >> >> As mentioned in my previous message, 2012-02 has been withdrawn and Sandra >> Brown has sent a new policy proposal to the RIPE community, 2014-05. This >> policy proposal enables Inter-RIR transfers between the RIPE region and the >> other regions with active Inter-RIR transfer policies (ARIN and APNIC for >> now). >> >> I already talked to Sandra during the previous RIPE Meeting and discussed >> the possible ways forward for what is now known as 2014-05. While Sandra is >> supposed to be our competition :-) I would nevertheless like to acknowledge >> the great work she has done for 2014-05 and would like to invite her to >> (maybe) send the same or a very similar policy proposal in the APNIC region >> as well. If she does not have time for it, I would like to come up with a >> similar proposal in the APNIC region to be discussed before and during the >> meeting in Brisbane. >> Basically, her proposal is asking the RIPE NCC to create an operational >> procedure and work with the other RIRs to allow Inter-RIR transfers. (if >> incoming transfers to the RIPE region from ARIN/APNIC will require need based >> justification, the RIPE NCC will request it's member/LIR to provide the >> justification). >> >> As far as I have seen and heard from various people in this community, DN >> for post-exhaustion has already been removed once and only added because ARIN >> had it in their policy. If we work on a new policy proposal, maybe we can >> remove DN for everything else but ARIN incoming IPs (for as long as ARIN will >> keep DN in their policy) and still be compatible with RIPE and ARIN policies >> regarding Inter-RIR transfers. >> >> Kind regards, >> Elvis >> >> >> On 28/05/14 09:01, Masato Yamanishi wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Elvis and All, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regarding inter-RIR transfer with ARIN, Sec 8.4 of ARIN NRPM says, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 8.4. Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients >>> >>> >>> >>> Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the >>> transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So, it means APNIC policy should be accepted as "reciprocal, compatible, >>> needs-based policies" by ARIN community >>> >>> to keep Inter-RIR transfer between ARIN and APNIC. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> > The policy proposal would remove DN for transfers between APNIC members. >>>> Basically, no DN for Intra-RIR transfers and DN verified by the receiving >>>> RIR if they have it in policy. >>>> > It would also permit transfers from ARIN or RIPE NCC to APNIC (keeping >>>> the DN in policy only if the sending RIR still has such a policy). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Can somebody participating ARIN discussion actively clarify whether this >>> idea is still reciprocal with ARIN NRPM >>> >>> which requires demonstrated needs for both of Intra-RIR transfer and >>> Inter-RIR transfer? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Rgs, >>> >>> Masato Yamanishi >>> >>> APNIC Policy SIG Co-Chair >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14/05/27 10:54, "Elvis Velea" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I agree with Skeeve that we should start a discussion about Demonstrated >>>> Need (DN). >>>> >>>> let me try and make a summary of current changes to transfers policies: >>>> >>>> A. RIPE region >>>> currently the RIPE region does no longer have a DN for Intra-RIR >>>> transfers. Policy proposal 2013-03 has cleanup the IPv4 policy and removed >>>> the DN for anything except the request of the last /22 from the RIPE NCC. >>>> Additionally, the Inter-RIR policy proposal 2012-02 will be withdrawn and >>>> a new policy proposal will be made shortly, as announced during RIPE68. [1] >>>> >>>> The new policy proposal will be made soon and it will say that: >>>> - for transfers to other RIRs: >>>> "When internet resources are transferred to another RIR, then RIPE NCC >>>> will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the receiving >>>> LIR." >>>> - for transfers into the RIPE region: >>>> "RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfill any requirements of the >>>> sending RIR" >>>> >>>> In other words, the transfer into the RIPE region will have DN only if the >>>> sending RIR will have such a policy. There will be no DN requirement for >>>> transfers from the RIPE region. However, the receiving RIR will need to >>>> approve based on it's policies. >>>> >>>> B. ARIN region >>>> >>>> There is, indeed, policy proposal 2014-14 (removal of DN for any transfers >>>> smaller than /16 per year). but I have not seen any discussion on it. If >>>> this policy proposal is approved (and that is a big if) I think that 8.4 in >>>> the ARIN NRPM could be interpreted as: /16 or lower per year can be done >>>> without DN. However, I hope that an ARIN representative may clarify. >>>> >>>> C. APNIC region >>>> >>>> APNIC had no DN policy when it reached the last /8 but it has been added >>>> back just because ARIN required it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Considering the latest developments, I would actually like to work on >>>> proposing a policy change in APNIC before APNIC38. >>>> >>>> The policy proposal would remove DN for transfers between APNIC members. >>>> Basically, no DN for Intra-RIR transfers and DN verified by the receiving >>>> RIR if they have it in policy. >>>> It would also permit transfers from ARIN or RIPE NCC to APNIC (keeping >>>> the DN in policy only if the sending RIR still has such a policy). >>>> >>>> What would the community think of such idea/policy proposal? >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Elvis >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://ripe68.ripe.net/presentations/292-RIPE-2014_Inter-RIR_Transfers.pdf >>>> >>>> On 19/05/14 03:01, Dean Pemberton wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for that Adam. >>>>> >>>>> So there we go... >>>>> >>>>> We decided that we didn't need DN for transfers (prop-50). Then we >>>>> decided that we needed it again (prop-96) so that ARIN would play with >>>>> us. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Adam Gosling <[email protected]> >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Skeeve, Dean >>>>>> >>>>>> The removal of DN in APNIC transfers was originally endorsed under >>>>>> prop-50, see below. For a very short time after IPv4 exhaustion APNIC >>>>>> actually operated under this policy before prop-096: Maintaining >>>>>> demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 >>>>>> phase >>>>>> added it back in. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> prop-050: IPv4 address transfers >>>>>> http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0009/12420/prop-050-v005.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Prior to the exhaustion of APNIC's IPv4 space (i.e. prior to the >>>>>> use of the "final /8" allocation measures) recipients of >>>>>> transfers will be required to justify their need for address >>>>>> space. After this time there is no requirement for any form of >>>>>> evaluation of requirements for eligibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Also of note is that the ARIN AC recently accepted "ARIN-prop-204 >>>>>> Removing >>>>>> Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft Policy. >>>>>> <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-May/028486.html>. As Bill >>>>>> rightly notes, this is a very early stage in the ARIN PDP. >>>>>> >>>>>> The status page for the proposal is >>>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_14.html >>>>>> >>>>>> This proposal would change the DN for ARIN recipients only. ARIN’s policy >>>>>> on Inter-RIR transfers may be found here >>>>>> <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight4> It states that >>>>>> "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the >>>>>> transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently the conditions on the recipient of a transfer are: "The >>>>>> conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be defined by >>>>>> the policies of the receiving RIR.” >>>>>> >>>>>> So my understanding is that while APNIC is (of course) free to change >>>>>> it’s >>>>>> transfers DN at any time, the ARIN Secretariat must be satisfied APNIC >>>>>> has >>>>>> a “compatible, needs-based” policy, or it would not be able to authorise >>>>>> the transfer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Adam Gosling >>>>>> Internet Policy Development Consultant email: [email protected] >>>>>> APNIC >>>>>> sip: [email protected]http://www.apnic.net >>>>>> phone: +61 7 >>>>>> 3858 3100 >>>>>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 19/05/2014 10:05 am, "Dean Pemberton" <[email protected]> >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The details of APNIC transfer policy prop-95 removed the requirement >>>>>>> for the recipient or transfers to show DN. >>>>>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-095 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------ From the Policy ------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5.2.3 Conditions on the recipient of the transfer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The conditions of the transfer defined by RIR where the >>>>>>> recipient organization holds an account, will apply to the >>>>>>> recipient of the transfer: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - For transfers from an account holder of the counterpart >>>>>>> RIR(*) to APNIC account holder, the conditions defined >>>>>>> in APNIC transfer policy at the time of the transfer >>>>>>> will apply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - For transfers from APNIC account holder an account >>>>>>> holder of to the counterpart RIR(*), the conditions >>>>>>> defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the >>>>>>> time of the transfer will apply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> prop-96 quickly places it back. >>>>>>> https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------ From the Policy ------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Introduction >>>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a proposal to maintain the requirement for recipients of IPv4 >>>>>>> transfers to justify their need for address space beyond the current >>>>>>> allocation phase and into the final /8 phase. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Summary of the current problem >>>>>>> ---------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The current APNIC transfer policy removes the requirement to >>>>>>> demonstrate a need for transferred IPv4 addresses after the final /8 >>>>>>> phase begins. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, this removal of justification of need once APNIC enters the >>>>>>> final /8 phase will make APNIC the only RIR that does not require a >>>>>>> demonstrated need to be shown for an IPv4 transfer to be approved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If an inter-RIR transfer policy, such as prop-095, were to be approved, >>>>>>> given that any transfers would be conducted according to the transfer >>>>>>> policy of the source RIR, it would disadvantage APNIC if other RIRs >>>>>>> were to be able to transfer IPv4 addresses from APNIC without requiring >>>>>>> any justification. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contrast this with transfers where APNIC is the recipient of the >>>>>>> transfer, and must follow the transfer policy of the source RIR. Since >>>>>>> all other RIRs require justification in transfers, it would be more >>>>>>> difficult to have transfers of addresses into the APNIC region than it >>>>>>> would for addresses to be transferred out of the APNIC region. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition, having no justification requirement in the final /8 phase >>>>>>> is raising concerns in some RIR regions and making them reluctant to >>>>>>> recognize any inter-RIR transfer policy with APNIC. Therefore, it is >>>>>>> possible that even if APNIC were to adopt prop-095, no other RIR may be >>>>>>> willing to engage in such inter-RIR transfers with APNIC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey Dean, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please remind me which policy number that was... clearly I >>>>>>> missed >>>>>>> something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker >>>>>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business >>>>>>> [email protected] ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com >>>>>>> <http://www.theispguy.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Dean Pemberton <[email protected]> >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We still have DN for one reason and one reason only. >>>>>>> ARIN requires it as part of their transfer policy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We know this because the community already removed the requirement for >>>>>>> DN >>>>>>> for IPv4 addresses post exhaustion once, and then quickly had to put >>>>>>> it back >>>>>>> in because we stood to miss out on ARIN transfers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So to my mind the community has already spoken and this is what it has >>>>>>> said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "We don't want/care about DN for post exhaustion IPv4 addresses. We've >>>>>>> already voted to remove it once. We *DO* care about transfers from >>>>>>> ARIN, so >>>>>>> we put DN back. Thats the only reason we have DN." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So here you go community... am I wrong with that statement? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am simply asking for opinions so that when/if something happens in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> other regions that the APNIC region has already discussed it, or at >>>>>>> least >>>>>>> had opening discussions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you think that we should avoid any discussion on the matter before >>>>>>> something happens and be reactionary? or seek to open a discussion >>>>>>> and get >>>>>>> the feeling from the community? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lately there has been a lot of comments on involving the community >>>>>>> more... which is what I am trying to facilitate by bringing up the >>>>>>> topic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...Skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker >>>>>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business >>>>>>> [email protected] ; www.v4now.com <http://www.v4now.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com >>>>>>> <http://www.theispguy.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Dean Pemberton >>>>>>> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Too true Bill, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For me the trigger points for any further conversation on DN are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ARIN changes or relaxes its policy on requiring DN for transfers. >>>>>>> *OR* >>>>>>> APNIC members decide they no longer need transfers from ARIN. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm happy to talk about one of those things (the second), the first >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> none of my business. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 18, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Skeeve Stevens <[email protected]> >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ARIN, RIPE and APNIC all have demonstrated need at present. >>>>>>> RIPE and ARIN are having discussions about removing or lowering >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, RIPE is. I wouldn’t say that’s true of ARIN. I mean, there >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> always people talking about stuff, but there’s a difference >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> between people >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> talking and a policy proposal that has any support or chance of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> becoming >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> future policy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected]http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni >>>>>>> c-talk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected]http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni >>>>>>> c-talk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected]http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni >>>>>>> c-talk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dean >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected]http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni >>>>>>> c-talk >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk >>> >> >>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
