[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - revised

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 22, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:

> To explore another topic..  if we allow and effect inter-RIR transfers aren't we doing an end run around the distribution policies and authority of the entity that allocated the IP space to ARIN in the first place?
> 

Not really. The purpose of the RIR system was not geography-based distribution of the IP space. It was to enable
address policy that met regional needs. While all of the RIRs have similar missions and resulting similar policies,
they are not identical and the regional differences are  a necessary and good thing.

That is why this proposal takes the possibility of differing policies into account and specifically requires certain
elements of policy be shared between the RIRs cooperating on any transfer under this policy.

> IMHO if ARIN can and is willing to transfer space anywhere it should go back from whence it came for redistribution.
> 

Because this represents a directed transfer from one party to another and the two RIRs involved are merely acting
as intermediaries, involving a fifth party in the transaction is not beneficial and would add significant overhead to
the process. In order for this to function, there would need to be an additional global policy adopted by all 5 RIRs
to enable IANA to handle it's part in these directed transfers.

We are not talking about moving addresses from ARIN's free pool to other regions.
We are not talking about addresses returned to ARIN.

We are talking about where Organization A in the X region wants to transfer to Organization B in the Y region.
Organization A is not going to give their resources back to ARIN or IANA. They want to transfer them to
Organization B for some reason (possibly payment from Organization B or other perceived gain).

> The problem with this is that *you* will not be able to take profit from the sale.  So really, any push toward inter-RIR transfers is really placing the almighty shekel above the needs of the community.  At least be honest and admit that what you are trying to do is create a market you can make a lot of money from.  
> 

I don't think there's all that much money to be made in inter-RIR transfers that isn't available in intra-regional
transfers, frankly. What we are trying to do is allow the market to operate across regional boundaries so that
the situation is somewhat normalized across regions and we don't have major differences in the pain thresholds
across the regions.

As much as I find monetized transfers to be an abomination and think that no good will come of 8.3, I also
think it was a necessary evil much like I viewed NAT when it was first being deployed. However, the one
thing that would have been far worse than NAT would be to force certain geographies into NAT while
preserving liberal IPv4 allocations and clear-wire internet in others.

I don't like the idea of inter-RIR transfers any more than I like the idea of transfers in general. However, this
time, we have to swallow hard and accept the reality that this is something we have to do, no matter how
distasteful we consider it to be.

> I would wonder what IANA would think about an RIR that admitted it had more space than it needed by offering to transfer space out of region.  When things get ugly and the vultures start circling could they possibly start recalling allocated space for redistribution from entities that have an excess?
> 

Applying this to the current policy indicates you do not understand the nature of the proposal.
Perhaps you are mixing up 2011-1 with 2011-9?

Owen