[arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARINInter-RIRTransfers - Last Call

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 00:14:38 EDT 2011

On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> [snip]> But what they hey, as long as you've broached the subject:
>> In your view, which of the other four RIRs presently implement a
>> transfer policy whose minimum path through the policy-derived process
>> appiles as restrictive or more restrictive rules on the recipient than
>> ARIN's? I won't ask you to "prove it" in each case, but as few of us
>> here are experts in other RIRs' policies I will ask you to explain
> [snip]
> Other "RIR policies" are not fixed.   We can't say the transfer policy
> is "OK" based on other RIRs' current policies, when the other RIRs'
> communities can choose to change them at any time.
> How could we possiblty anticipate what their rules will be when most
> RIRs don't even have any kind of Inter-RIR transfer policy?
> The other RIRs are free to revise their own policies, ARIN should not
> have a "variable" policy
> that becomes more restrictive or less restrictive,  depending on
> actions other organizations take from time to time.   The other RIRs
> do not have to consult with the ARIN community to make their
> transfer policies more restrictive or less restrictive,  and do not
> have to consult with the ARIN community
> in regards to how they choose to interpret their policies.
> A recent proposal @ AfriNic   to allow members to transfer addresses
> (within region)  contained text like this;     I think it's safe to
> say  ARIN's  8.3 is a lot more restrictive  than the draft they have :
> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-001-draft-01.htm
> "2.1) Legacy members can transfer part or all of their IPv4 addresses
> to any company under the following criteria: ....
> a) The company to which the addresses are transferred may or may not
> enter into agreement with AfriNIC.
> b) The legacy member may or may not inform AfriNIC about the transaction.
> c) AfriNIC will accord the third party all relevant access to services
> and benefits normally available to legacy members.
> 2.2) Paying AfriNIC members can transfer part or all of their IPv4
> addresses to any company under the following criteria:  ....
> b) The transfer and needs analysis cannot be based on any current
> policies. The only requirement for the transfer to happen should be
> the contract between the member and AfriNIC.
> ...
> "

That proposal had almost no support.  Even if it did, it wouldn't have
qualified as a compatible needs-based transfer policy.

If another RIR does manage to come up with and get consensus for a
compatible needs-based transfer policy that has a less restrictive
needs assessment than ARIN's transfer policy, that may be an
indication we need to look at making our transfer policy less
restrictive as well.   Keep in mind that as long as we have a free
pool, it doesn't much matter if it's slightly easier or harder to
transfer addresses to another region.  The transfers will go to where
the demand is (where there are no free addresses to be had), and the
limiting factor on how much space most organizations get via transfer
will be the amount they have to pay for them, not how difficult the
needs assessment was.

That is a separate issue from whether we need additional protections
to prevent organizations from gaming the system to monetize the
remaining free pool(s) at the community's expense.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list