[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Aug 24 13:38:47 EDT 2011
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com> wrote:
> This prop-156 ..I am trying to comprehend why we would be wanting to
> transfer resources from ARIN to another "RIR's member" when RIRs have the
> potential to all have slightly different transfer policies?
Most RIRs now have transfer policies in place that allow addresses to
be transferred between organizations within the RIR's region. That is
likely to result in a transfer market, where the prices are set by
supply of and demand for IPv4 space. The ARIN region has a larger
amount of legacy address space than the other RIRs, and a relatively
mature market that is no longer growing at tremendous rates. Other
regions, such as APNIC, have almost no legacy address space and are
still growing much faster. Without some mechanism to allow address
space to be transferred between regions, prices for IPv4 addresses are
likely to be much higher in regions like APNIC than within the ARIN
region. That will encourage organizations to transfer addresses from
ARIN to those other regions however they can, either by obtaining it
here and using it elsewhere, or by engaging in de facto transfers
outside the RIR system. IMO we want to avoid that by allowing
inter-RIR transfers to occur within the RIR system.
> Or are we asking all RIRs to consider needs based policies akin to ARIN?
That is what draft policy ARIN-2011-1 asks. APNIC will be considering
a proposal (prop-096) to reinstate needs basis for transfers at their
Busan meeting next week. If prop-096 is adopted, I think ARIN-2011-1
would be adequate and ARIN-prop-156 would likely not be necessary. If
not, then ARIN-2011-1 is a no-op (at least with respect to APNIC), and
ARIN-prop-156 would be needed.
> Is it not more effective to deal with transfers between RIRs and leave the
> respective RIR to deal with its own members.?
That is the approach favored by ARIN-2011-9 Global Policy for post
exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA. I support that
policy as well, but I think it will be insufficient, as organizations
holding valuable address space largely won't want to return it to ARIN
for redistribution to other regions. They would be much more likely
to be willing to transfer the space to an APNIC member if they could
receive some form of compensation for doing so.
Hope that helps,
-Scott (speaking only for myself, as always)
More information about the ARIN-PPML