[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published(No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)(Tore Anderson)

Sandra and all,

Some comments below.

On 25/07/2013, at 7:19 AM, <sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com> wrote:

> 
> Dear Tore,
> 
> Thank you for inviting me to speak.
> 
>>> I feel this statement is somewhat disingenuous. The "odd RIR out" here
> is really ARIN, who is the only one to have a inter-RIR transfer policy
> that has a needs-based requirement that is also applied to the other
> region involved in the transfer.
> 
> I agree 100% that ARIN is the "Odd RIR Out".  Only ARIN pushes for
> needs assessments and other silliness on transfers, and I agree 100%
> that 
> companies will not be silly about spending good money on IPv4 addresses
> that
> may become worthless.  

To clarify, the entire APNIC transfer system is "needs-based".  The requirement applies to the recipient of any transfer, whether it is intra- and inter-regional; and not just in the case of transfers received from ARIN.

I will also add that once the policy decision was made, the implementation of needs-based transfers has been almost entirely without complaint or controversy at APNIC.  The requirements for receiving a transfer are exactly the same as they were for receiving an allocation, and these are well understood within the APNIC community.  The only difference is that the recipient receives a "pre-approval" rather than an actual allocation.

By the way, recipients can opt to have their pre-approval listed on the APNIC website, and you can see this listing here:

http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/manage-your-membership/pre-approval/listing

Currently we are completing on average around 10 transfers per month, 20% being inter-regional.

All the best

Paul Wilson
Director General.



> 
>>> That said, there has been an inter-RIR proposal (2012-02) on the table
> for a while now, but the community does not seem to want or care much
> about it. I think that this is important to keep that in mind when
> deciding on how much weight to give this argument against 2013-03.
> 
> Yes, 2012-02 was on the table, but has now been withdrawn, pending the
> outcome
> of 2013-03.  If, and hopefully when, 2013-03 is implemented, then my
> intention is to put in place
> a new inter-RIR proposal for the RIPE community, at a time the community
> feels is
> appropriate, which allows for transfer of **legacy** IP's currently in
> the ARIN registry.
> As you probably know, legacy IP's were issued to resource holders prior
> to the 
> creation of ARIN in 1997, and thus legacy holders can request RIPE to
> register
> their IP's, if the RIPE community agrees, rather than ARIN, as the
> registry.
> Then the inter-RIR transfer of legacy IP's from ARIN to RIPE can proceed
> regardless of needs justification, as the legacy IP's would be in the
> RIPE
> registry rather than the ARIN registry.  We would have to discuss the
> mechanics as it might better be regarded as an inter-RIR transfer from a
> legacy 
> ARIN registry element to a RIPE LIR.  This is much like the ERX
> transfers of the
> past, but to a purchasing LIR.
> 
> 
>>> I'm not at all principally opposed to inter-RIR transfers, so if the
> author of 2012-02 would add a "need compatibility clause" to the
> proposed inter-RIR policy, I would have nothing against that. In other
> words, if it would be possible to make the need evaluation a voluntary
> thing that you only had to do if transferring addresses from the ARIN
> region - fine. Then those 5 LIRs, and those 5 only, could subject
> themselves to whatever demands the ARIN community might have, while the
> rest of us would be free of the IPv4 bureaucracy. Win-win.
> 
> No, the author of 2012-02 is strongly opposed to needs justification so
> I 
> would not be interested in adding needs compatibility to inter-RIR
> transfers.
> I would much rather focus on legacy IP's for inter-RIR transfers,
> intra-RIR
> transfers within RIPE, and will support any discussion within the
> community
> to bring modern economics to ARIN.
> 
> Best Regards, and Thanks for the Invitation,
> Sandra Brown
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130725/3d9a38c6/attachment.p7s>