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

[Martin Hannigan]

Asking people for "evidence" of this is a red herring.

It is a widely held belief that I have heard from even reliable
sources including RIR staff members that it is/was/has been relatively
easy to acquire address space in the APNIC region, for example. That
is not indicative of right or wrong.  I do take it as fact considering
the sources and their numbers.

Best,

-M<



On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:37 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
> On 1/17/12 10:25 CST, 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.
>>
>> That's unfair. Were it an ARIN-region registrant trying to transfer
>> addresses from another region that unfairness wouldn't be so
>> objectionable. But when it's an ARIN-region registrant trying to
>> capture ARIN-region addresses, the unfairness is manifest.
>
>
> Bill,
>
> Can you please provide specific policies of the other RIRs you feel are less
> strict.  When I look at the policies I see them as more or less equivalent,
> on some issues we are more strict and on others we are less, but we seem to
> be in the same ballpark on most everything.  So, yes, the polices are not
> identical.  But, on balance, I don't believe there is that significant of a
> difference, at least not enough difference to justify calling it unfair.
>
> There seems to be a general impression that the other RIR's policies are
> more lax than ARIN's, but I don't believe that is born out in reality.
>
> The current NRO comparative overview is located at;
>
> http://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2011-03
>
> Previous version can be found at;
>
> http://www.nro.net/policies/rir-comparative-policy-overview
>
> I'm willing to be convinced that there are differences that matter. However,
> I'm unwilling just take this as "everybody knows" the other RIRs are less
> strict, I need a much stronger argument.
>
> Thanks
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE      Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.