[address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"

Hi

What’s the difference between the below description and an inter-RIR
transfer policy?

And as current policy text, there is no restriction on using any of RIR
resource on globe level.


On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 20:28 Martin Huněk <hunekm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Dne pondělí 26. března 2018 13:35:47 CEST, Staff napsal(a):
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > On 26.03.2018 2:56, Max Tulyev wrote:
> > > If this GIR runs parallel to existing RIRs and in competition with all
> > > them - that's a very good idea, I support it.
> >
> > Another one IR is good idea and should be created.
> >
> > GIR with RIRs - this is good idea too. GIR should be created and be
> > independent. And members of RIR should have ability where to have there
> > resources support.
> >
> > I support.
>
> I don't think that it is such a good idea. First of all, I can see the
> problem
> of such organizations which resident in multiple RIR regions, however I do
> think that I can be solved by bilateral agreement between current RIRs,
> rather
> than creating "GIR" (something between IANA and current RIRs.
>
> I can also see that someone might see it as an opportunity to get yet
> another
> resources, which they cannot from current RIRs. However there is no more
> IPv4
> in IANA pool, so we would have to talk about IPv6 only "GIR" with only 32b
> ASN
> (in contrast with LACNIC policy text). And when I look at IPv6 policies at
> RIPE region (at least), there are quite open-minded with their allocation
> size.
>
> So do we really need yet another RIR? In my opinion No. It would solve just
> marginal problem which does have simpler solution.
>
> The solution might be an Inter-RIR status (e.g. source: RIPE-INTER-RIR)
> based
> upon agreement between LIR and multiple RIRs (in which case the resources
> would be assigned/allocated from one of them).
>
> Example:
> 1) AfriNIC based LIR would like to operate part of its network in RIPE
> region
> 2) LIR asks AfriNIC for approval to operate outside of RIR region and
> provides
> documentation with reasoning and corresponding RIR in which region LIR
> would
> like to operate
> 3) AfriNIC decides if the LIR's proposal is fine.
> 4) AfriNIC asks RIPE: Is it OK? May that LIR in this case operate this
> network
> in your region?
> 4) If both RIRs agrees on LIR's proposal, the AfriNIC marks LIR's resources
> accordingly (like moving it to separate DB or something like operates in:
> RIPE)
>
> Certainly no RIR would volunteer their IPv4 pool to new "GIR" as LACNIC
> proposal suggest and there is no more "global" IPv4 pool available...
>
> Sincerely
> Martin Hunek
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180326/48431d04/attachment.html>