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

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Wed Aug 23 15:59:59 EDT 2017


Mike,

Thanks for the correction on CN and the link. I double checked of KR, TW,
and VN, the three NIRs that don't allow outbound transfers, only KR has the
two transfers of /22 from 2014 that I originally mentioned.

That is then less than 1% of the 303 transfers between APNIC and ARIN, and
probably way less than 1% of the address space involved.

This only reinforces my conclusion, the cure is worse than disease!

Thanks

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
>
> https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-
> resources/nir-ipv4-transfer/
>
>
>
> CNNIC allows outbound transfers now.
>
> So of your statistics below, really only the two /22s to KRNIC are valid
> examples of transfers to one-way recipient NIRs.
>
>
>
> Frankly I believe both KRNIC and VNNIC would both actually process an
> outbound transfer if one was ever presented to it. They are technically
> bound in some way to APNIC policies but I doubt this has ever been
> challenged.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *David
> Farmer
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 23, 2017 1:57 PM
> *To:* Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity
> Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
> ===============================================
>



-- 
===============================================
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/bdf17746/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list