[arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon May 23 18:17:02 EDT 2011
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> In the context of this proposal, may I ask what would happen if APNIC
> accepted a transfer of ARIN legacy addresses and updated their Whois, even
> if ARIN refused the transfer?
I suppose what would matter in that case is who IANA pointed to. To date,
we haven't seen cases where two different RIRs were both claiming authority
for the same address block, and I don't expect to see that, as all of the
RIRs are committed to operating within the "RIR system".
> (Because the language of the proposal pointedly excludes APNIC, if their
> current policy remains in place.)
> I know that ARIN could revoke and reissue.
> How is inter-RIR conflict resolved, is there a process in place for
> conflict resolution?
Yes, I believe there is, but I don't know the details. I presume it would
be a largely consensual process within the ASO/NRO/IANA framework (perhaps
within the NRO EC?).
> Do the RIRs generally have compatible needs-based transfer policies, I mean
> I know APNIC doesn't, but do the other RIRs have the same 3-month window,
> for example?
> Is a difference in the needs window enough to prevent a transfer?
> If so, do we need to consider other RIRs and the impact on inter-RIR
> transfers when we consider proposals to change the needs window?
> What if RIPE joins APNIC with a requirement like a /24 maximum, is that
> something that makes the needs requirements incompatible?
I don't consider any such differences in timeframes, size minimums/maximums,
etc. to be incompatibilities in the context of 2011-1. But ARIN has said
that, as things stand today, the lack of explicit needs basis in APNIC's
transfer policy would make it incompatible with 2011-1's requirement for
"compatible, needs-based transfer policies". I hope we can come to an
agreement with the APNIC community on language or interpretation that would
be compatible with both regions' needs and preferences, but 2011-1 as I see
it is just the first step in that direction: setting up a framework that
would allow inter-RIR transfers once such incompatibilities are resolved
somehow (or with other RIRs where such incompatibilities may not exist).
> I guess I am asking for a more detailed definition of the word "compatible"
> in your proposed language.
> Maybe that language is extraneous, as you are already requiring both RIRs
> to agree?
Operationally, the two are quite related, in that ARIN will not agree unless
they assess the other RIR's transfer policy to be compatible. But the "RIRs
agree" language is also there as a safety valve to explicitly allow an RIR
to not agree to a transfer if it has reason to believe that the transfer
would violate policy or law.
-Scott (speaking only for myself, as usual)
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> *To:* Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> *Cc:* ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 23, 2011 5:21 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> I could support this, but, I have a couple of lingering concerns.
>> I think that the last sentence dictates too much in the case of a transfer
>> to another region and should only apply to transfers within the ARIN region.
> Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. Possible slight revision inline
>> I would like to see us relocate the
>> single aggregate clause to make it binding on the actual community intent
>> and if we're
>> going to turn 2011-1 into a policy to modify 8.3 anyway, we should
>> incorporate that
> I would like to see another proposal to do this (and to be discussed as a
> counterpoint to ARIN-prop-144 in Philadelphia).
>> On May 23, 2011, at 15:54, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>> In light of the discomfort a number of community and AC members feel
>> with the original 2011-1 text, I thought I'd make an attempt at integrating
>> it into the framework of NRPM 8.3, to see if the result would be tighter and
>> less ambiguous. Here's what I came up with:
>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be
>> released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for
>> - to a specified organizational recipient within the ARIN region, or
>> - to another RIR, for transfer to a specified organizational recipient
>> in that RIR's service region, if the two RIRs agree and maintain compatible,
>> needs-based transfer policies.
>> Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by
>> organizations that can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single
>> aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN
> How about "Such number resources may only be received under RSA by
> organizations that can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single
> aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN, or
> recipient RIR, policies." ?
> Or, feel free to suggest text...
>> For reference, existing policy reads:
>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within
>> the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder,
>> in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
>> recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA
>> by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the
>> need for such resources, as a single aggregate, in the exact amount which
>> they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>> And original 2011-1 text reads:
>> Any RIR's resource registrant may transfer IPv4 addresses to the resource
>> registrant of another RIR as long as the two RIRs agree and maintain
>> compatible, needs-based transfer policies that exercise Internet stewardship
>> consistent with the values expressed in RFC2050.
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML