[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Oct 30 12:05:48 EDT 2012

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 10/30/12 09:09 , Michael Burns wrote:
>> Support. The process has been shown to work for address space.
>> Mike Burns
> I'm not fundamentally opposed to Inter-RIR transfers of ASNs.  However, I
> would like to know that their is actually interest from at least one other
> RIR to develop the reciprocal policy necessary to make this a functional
> policy.  Otherwise this is purely an intellectual exercise, and I believe we
> have enough other things to do without taking on purely intellectual
> exercises.
> I'm not aware of any of the other RIRs even having policy for local transfer
> of ASNs in the works, let alone Inter-RIR transfers of ASNs. So, I'd propose
> taking this on the docket, but not doing any work on it until we see some
> work on the issue in one of the other RIRs, if no work is started in one of
> the other RIRs within a policy cycle or two then I would suggest we abandon
> it.

We saw that with regional ASN transfers that once you provided the
mechanism, it was utilized. We knew the demand was there since many
knew of the quite public secret that ASN's were traded on a regular
basis. I'm not sure how someone could assert that this wasn't also
happening internationally.

Section 5 of the APNIC inter-rir transfer might be interpreted to
accommodate this type of transfer as well as RIPE 2012-7 since it
doesn't differentiate a legacy "internet resource". I can't speak for
the policy proposers in the RIPE region and nor do I pretend to, but
in the latter case, it's possible that we don't need this proposal at
all since theoretically, the RIPE region proposal (if adopted) clearly
states the definition of a legacy resources as prior to the creation
of the RIPE NCC and does not differentiate between ASN's and IP
addresses. One might also assume that based on the language  you might
be able to bring your resource directly to the RIPE NCC, get their
services agreement which if adopted would be much more conducive to
retaining the value of a resource, and simply register the transfer

Making it "easy" to utilize ARIN's process, even if it turns out to be
inferior to other regions, has value. It makes a transfer cheaper for
one thing and instills a level of trust on the part of a US based
transferee since familiarity with a legal system is part of that trust
mechanism. It also insures that the supply of ASN's is efficiently
used and that the all important registry is updated and as accurate as
possible. I thought the latter part was the important bit to be



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list