[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Wed Aug 23 13:56:44 EDT 2017


On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> > On Aug 18, 2017, at 05:14 , David Huberman <daveid at panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am a US-based company and I operate a network on multiple continents.
> >
> > I need to be able to move space from my home RIR of ARIN to other
> regions as I expand my network overseas.
> >
> > The current policy that has been in effect for many years allows me to
> operate my network properly -- using ARIN blocks in ARIN, APNIC blocks in
> APNIC, and RIPE blocks in RIPE.  The policy is predictable and I can plan
> network growth around it.
> >
> > If this proposal passes, it will shut off transfers between ARIN and
> APNIC. This will hurt my business's finances.  We purchased addresses in
> the ARIN region wth the intention of moving them to APNIC in the future. We
> did so because the size blocks we needed were not available in the APNIC
> region. So now we are talking about hurting my business for ... what
> reason? How do network operations benefit from this proposal?
>
> Currently, there are certain registries that are operating like roach
> motels for IP addresses. KR-NIC, CN-NIC are examples.
>

There is no evidence that this presents anything more than a theoretical
problem, in fact I went and looked at APNICs transfer logs;

https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/transfer-logs/
or
http://ftp.apnic.net/transfers/apnic/

I found out of 281 transfers from ARIN to APNIC, there were 2 to KR and 15
to CN, and the 2 to KR were /22s and all the transfers to CN appear to be
cloud providers from the best I can tell.  There were also another 22
transfers from APNIC to ARIN, for a total of 303 transfers between APNIC
and ARIN.

You want to break 94% of the transfers between APNIC and ARIN because you
don't like 6% of them.

AfriNIC is discussing a similar proposal and a similar proposal was
> discussed in LACNIC.
>

Help me understand this, we are going to break transfers to APNIC in hopes
that ArfNIC and LACNIC won't pass a policy?  Please explain how you expect
that to work.


> It is hoped that by implementing this policy it will put pressure on those
> registries to be more cooperative with the global community in allowing
> bi-directional transfers.
>
> That is how it helps network operations. Admittedly, it’s a short-term
> pain for a longer term gain, but that is the intent.
>

In my opinion the cure you propose is fare worse than the disease you seek
to remedy.  This policy will seriously damage what seems like a mostly well
functioning system, primarily to influence a decision that is independent
of the result.

I cannot support this policy.

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
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170823/f2c45234/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list