[ppml] [sig-policy] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:04:54AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
> Concerning mechanics, in looking at the APNIC and ARIN proposals they 
> both take the approach of "qualification" of the two parties to a 
> transfer. One approach would be to 'recognise' the qualification from 
> another region - i.e. taking an ARIN perspective a "transferor" (is that 
> really an english word? ;-)) meets the criteria listed in section 8.4.1. 
>   To extend this to allow cross-RIR transfers it would be a case of 
> adding "or meets the criteria as listed (insert reference to the 
> transfer policy of another RIR) for members of (RIR). Similarly the 
> conditions of the transferee could be augmented by reference to the 
> relevant qualifications in the policies of other RIRs. So in terms of 
> extending the mechanics of the policy proposals to encompass cross-RIR 
> transfers then I'd suggest that there are ways to achieve this though 
> the use of mutual recognition of each RIR's qualification processes.

I'd like to agree with Geoff's analysis.  I think the mechanics of
doing this across RIR are relatively simple as he explains.  We
also have experience from the ERX effort in actually getting the
database entries to the right place.

Rather than trying to pass a global policy having each region pass
a reciprocity policy of sorts.  This has two advantages.  First,
it should be faster than a true global policy.  Second, it can
create a stalemate that prevents change.  The problem of a "globally
coordinated policy" has been discussed.  Rather than have everyone
agree not to make changes it's easier to enforce if ARIN's policy
says "we'll grant reciprocity to any RIR's policy that contains a
requirement to do x, y, and z."  A change away from x, y, or z would
automatically stop the reciprocity, which is a far greater consequence
than having the global policy no longer be coordinated.

However, I also agree with Geoff that the larger issue is the
potential for unintended consequences.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080212/e6093b92/attachment.sig>