[arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers

[Alexander, Daniel]

Bill,

I agree that the number one below is a difficult idea, and would add to
it. I think the only way an inter-RIR transfer structure would work is if
the source RIR does not have to be in the business of reviewing requests
from another region. I don't think it scales, and puts an operational
burden on the source RIR that would be better distributed to the
destination.

My impression is that the word "compatible" provides the flexibility to
the RIR without imposing the burden of having to review every request. If
ARIN staff observes transfer behavior in a region that is questionable, it
could raise the issue to the AC and the BoT. I would presume that
inter-RIR transfers could then be put on hold while an understanding of
the situation is achieved.

If my presumption is accurate, it is not in another RIR's interest to
approve transfers without regard. It would not benefit their community to
bring the issue to question, putting transfers on hold for the benefit of
a few. I would be interested in hearing thoughts whether my presumption is
in line with how others see the policy working. I am not naive enough to
think this will be 100% efficient, but policy rarely is.

-Dan Alexander


On 1/13/12 12:11 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

>On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Alexander, Daniel
><Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of
>>prop-151,
>> and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result?
>>
>> Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients
>>
>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
>>
>> * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be
>>defined
>> by the policies of the receiving RIR.
>> * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN
>> policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received.
>> * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to
>>a
>> 12 month supply of IPv4 address space.
>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
>
>
>Hi Dan,
>
>I think linchpin of the problem stems from the "destination RIR sets
>the rules" approach. The RIRs are not the same. ARIN has one of the
>strictest set of requirements on address recipients. With ARIN and
>outregion users bidding in the same pool of sellers, this places
>ARIN-region registrants at a distinct disadvantage.
>
>In order to keep "destination RIR sets the rules" without harming
>every would-be registrant in the ARIN region, the draft would need to
>do one of two things:
>
>1. Make the "compatible policy" requirements stricter: destination RIR
>must have needs based policies of at least comparable strictness
>versus ARIN.
>
>2. Race to the bottom: remove all but the most minimal requirements on
>an ARIN region recipient. Assume that the cash payment will be
>sufficient to assure efficient utilization.
>
>#1 is a terrible idea. If we want to set recipient policy globally, we
>should do it globally. Not by setting local policy which pressures
>another RIR to do things our way.
>
>#2 is not the worst idea in the world but IMHO it's very premature.
>
>So, we don't do #1 or #2. And we don't knowingly harm ARIN-region
>recipients. Thus we can't reasonably use "destination RIR sets the
>rules." QED.
>
>ARIN, as the source RIR, will have to set at least enough rules on the
>out-region recipient to avoid harmfully disadvantaging ARIN
>constituents.
>
>Regards,
>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