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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 17, 2012, at 8:25 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel
> <Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Dan,
> 
> You're missing the point. It isn't a question of other RIRs behaving
> badly, it's about what happens when each RIR behaves normally and
> reasonably. Under 2011-1, the other RIR will apply their ordinary
> policies to the recipient. If not behaving badly, they'll apply the
> same policies they apply to any other recipient.
> 
> In general, those policies are less strict than ARINs. Not because of
> any malfeasance but because that's how they chose to set their own
> local policies. This means that an ARIN recipient will have a harder
> time qualifying his network to ARIN for receipt of a particular
> transfer of ARIN-region addresses than an out-region recipient to his
> RIR for the same transfer.
> 

Bill, you keep claiming that other RIRs have less strict policies.
Do you have any evidence or actual policy citations to back that up?

I don't believe it to actually be the case based on my experience
dealing with requests from 4 of the 5. Admittedly, I haven't done any
requests from LACNIC, so I can't really compare their situation.

Owen