[address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:

>
> I support the idea of allowing inter-region transfers in general as long
> as the marginal cost of doing so is reasonably low, so I feel a bit bad
> about this, but: I do *not* support this proposal.
>
> The reason for this is that inter-region transfers are being used as an
> argument against proposal 2013-03, see:
>
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-March/007757.html
>
> My view is that if the cost of allowing for inter-region transfers
> (specifically in a way that is compatible with ARIN's policy) is to
> uphold the need bureaucracy and operational overhead relating to
> assignments for all RIPE region LIRs, then the marginal cost is not
> reasonably low, but unacceptably high. If it's an either/or situation
> between 2012-02 and 2013-03, I'm firmly in the 2013-03 camp. I elaborate
> on why here:
>
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-March/007764.html


One point I think is worth mentioning in this thread: you referenced
http://www.menog.org/presentations/menog-12/127-IPv4_Transfers-RIPE_NCC_Update.pdfand
the fact that there have been only 17 transactions to date, as an
argument that 2012-02 is less of a priority than 2012-13.   One thing that
really stuck out to me from that presentation was the fact that there
was "Currently 6,144 IPs offered vs 1,714,176 requested" on the RIPE
listing service.  I have also heard that many organizations seeking to
obtain addresses via transfer in the RIPE region are having trouble doing
so, because of the scarcity of supply.  This has undoubtedly reduced the
volume of transactions.  I have also heard that it is resulting in
organizations setting for much less space than they'd like due to the high
price (relative to the prevailing market price in the ARIN and APNIC
regions).

Given that, I do think it is important to pass a compatible inter-RIR
transfer policy as soon as feasible, to allow organizations in the RIPE
region to get access to resources from other regions.


> This issue might be resolved by having 2012-02 add some text that
> upholds the need principle for transfers coming in from regions that
> demand it (read: ARIN), or for the recipient LIRs of such transfers
> overall.  I have no suggestion on exactly how this text could look like,

I'm afraid.


Perhaps the key would be to have RIPE continue doing needs assessment on
transfers, while allowing LIRs to reassign space to customers without any
particular requirements.  I'm not sure if RIPE would still have to collect
some sort of usage information on reassigned space in the event an LIR came
back for another block via transfer, but I suspect that'd be a much lower
burden than the current needs-assessment-on-everything situation.


> I suspect the proposer would have to discuss it with ARIN
> staff in order to get confirmation that any proposed text does indeed
> satisfy their definition of «needs-based general number resource policies».
>

Yes, there will definitely need to be some coordination there.

-Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130325/958a85d5/attachment.html>