[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal 2011-1 - Comments request - Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
Sat May 14 08:54:04 EDT 2011
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> Thanks Jeffrey,
> So, you believe that all legacy space originally captured within the ARIN db
> to be 'ARIN Resources'? And, if any of that space were to come available
> while there is need within ARIN it should be used in the ARIN region....even
> if there is need outside the ARIN region as well?
> And, if the resources were to come available and there was ONLY need outside
> the ARIN region, (however unlikely), then the resources should be HELD
> against future ARIN need, even though there was need outside of ARIN region?
> From: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com on behalf of Jeffrey Lyon
> Sent: Fri 5/13/2011 5:46 PM
> To: William Herrin
> Cc: Bill Darte; arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Proposal 2011-1 - Comments request - Globally
> Coordinated Transfer Policy
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
>>> The policy text reviewed at the meeting was as follows:
>>> 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
>>> consistent with the values expressed in RFC2050.
>>> 1. Identify support or objection
>> Hi Bill,
>>> 2. If objections exist, to succinctly identify what they are..and,
>> a. I'm not convinced we should be contemplating inter-region transfers
>> prior to ARIN's free pool exhausting.
>> b. I'm not convinced *any* of the 5 RIRs adhere to RFC2050's "values"
>> except in a very loose way... which makes it a weak and subjective
>> place to hang a policy.
>>> 3. How objections might be concisely remedied in text
>> "ARIN shall permit the transfer of IPv4 addresses between ARIN
>> registrants and registrants of other RIRs provided that:
>> a. Both ARIN and the other RIR agree to the transfer,
>> b. ARIN and the other RIR have functionally reciprocal inter-region
>> transfer policies, and
>> c. Both the offering and receiving registrants qualify for the
>> transfer under ARIN's normal intra-region resource transfer policies
>> save that one of the registrants is not in the ARIN region and will
>> therefore not be under contract to ARIN."
>> Bill Herrin
>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>> 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.
> I strongly oppose any measure that would open the doors to ARIN
> resources flowing outside of ARIN.
> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
> jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
> Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
> First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
My position is that the elected officials of ARIN are accountable to
ARIN region and should only be concerned with securing resources for
use within ARIN.
As a practical matter, every region is going to have need far beyond
supply but I am not comfortable with any policy which would open the
door to a decision that somehow another region's need is more
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
More information about the ARIN-PPML