[arin-ppml] 2011-1: reciprocity NOT required

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 12:50:20 EDT 2011

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:23 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:48 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:36 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> >> Actually, I'm not sure about that last sentence. We've all been
> >> assuming that reciprocity is expected, but rereading draft 2011-1 I
> >> find no explicit reciprocity requirement. As 2011-1 is understood by
> >> ARIN, does an RIR which does not permit its addresses to be
> >> transferred out-region but does apply a needs basis of unknown
> >> stricture to transfer recipients qualify to receive addresses under
> >> 2011-1?
> >
> > The RIR must have a compatible, needs-based transfer policy
> > which allows them to approved the request to transfer to the
> > recipient; there is no reciprocity requirement in 2011-1.
> Neat! So under 2011-1 as drafted, APNIC registrants, under APNIC's
> nearly completed needs-based allocation policy, may accept addresses
> sold by ARIN-region registrants even as APNIC's participants merrily
> debate whether and how to permit APNIC region registrants to sell
> addresses to ARIN region organizations.

> Congratulations Scott, you've reached the public policy big time now.
> You nearly created another not-really "free trade" agreement with
> China.

Ok, let's look at this from a trade perspective for a moment.

The ARIN region has more grain than the APNIC region.  The APNIC region has
a larger population, and therefore a larger demand for grain.  Current
policies do not ban the export of grain from anywhere in the APNIC region
that I'm aware of, but if such policy were to be introduced in the future,
the ARIN region does not have any automatic export bans that would kick in
as a result.

If you s/grain/IPv4 addresses/g the above is all true under 2011-1 as well.

I know IPv4 addresses are not grain.  My only point is that even
protectionists (who argue for import restrictions) largely agree that export
bans are generally bad trade policy.  And I've *never* seen an
*automatically triggered* export ban.

Who knows, maybe 2011-1 will help increase US exports to China and get us
closer to trade balance.

Getting back to the issue at hand, the inter-RIR portion of APNIC's transfer
policy is already in place (
http://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy#rir-transfer), and to my reading
is indeed reciprocal.  The only thing we're waiting on is the re-addition of
needs basis to their transfer policy generally, which as others mentioned
has achieved consensus: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111026/fc9083c4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list