[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Fri Aug 18 09:48:59 EDT 2017
My gut still tells me that transfers should not take place without a
bidirectional policy. Even then, the other RIR's are very likely seeking
IPv4 resources from ARIN, as opposed to the reverse, simply because ARIN
has under its control more than 1/2 the total space available, because of
the greatest amount of early space assigned was assigned to this region.
Even then, if the policy were to change, the OP would still be able to use
the address space it very likely purchased in the ARIN region in the APNIC
region, it just would not be able to transfer control of the space to
I would like to hear more information regarding actual examples from the
original policy proposer regarding the issues that were encountered that
caused this draft policy to be written. Was it something like space that
could not be transfered back to the origin, and thinking that the policy
allows one way transfers, or what?
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017, David Farmer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 7:30 AM, <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
>> I was always under the impression that companies that operate in more than
>> one region usually obtain their number resources from their home region,
>> and use these worldwide.
> That is one way to do things, and especially if you primarily operate in
> one region and have some operations in other regions. However, if you view
> yourself as a global operation it is equally valid to obtain resources from
> multiple or all RIRs.
>> I once worked with a company who was based in the Netherlands, but has a
>> presence all over the world. I was involved in their networks in the USA,
>> using a portion of a class B legacy space, which was at the time assigned
>> to RIPE. However, we used it in Texas and Florida. We dealt with the
>> geolocation problem by setting up proxy servers with address space from a
>> local ISP for internet access, and to save cross ocean bandwidth for
>> general internet access. Places like Netflix treated this space as Europe,
>> even though the space was SWIP'ed to the USA.
>> It is my understanding that section 9 of the NRPM allows out of region
>> use. Is there a reason you do not simply leave the resources registered
>> with ARIN? Is it because local affiliates, or otherwise?
> The out of region use policy, is permissive not proscriptive policy, it
> allow out of region use, and only requires that need in another region
> cannot be used as a justification to obtain resources from both ARIN and
> another RIR at the same time. The choice of where to obtain resources or
> maintain the registry of resources used in another region remains with the
> entity using the resources.
>> Albert Erdmann
>> Network Administrator
>> Paradise On Line Inc.
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017, David Huberman 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?
>>> On Aug 18, 2017, at 6:10 AM, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>>>> I would not consider an RIR that has NIR units that do not have a bi
>>>> directional transfer policy to comply with the policy of ARIN to only
>>>> permit transfers to/from those with a bi directional transfer policy.
>>>> Thus, I support the statement being added in this draft to make this
>>>> more clear.
>>>> Albert Erdmann
>>>> Network Administrator
>>>> Paradise On Line Inc.
>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:
>>>>> Thank you for the feedback on this draft policy to date. I would
>>>>> appreciate any other thoughts or comments on this draft policy.
>>>>> For review, Draft Policy 2017-6 is intended to add the following
>>>>> conditions on Inter RIR transfers to section 8.4:
>>>>> Recipient RIR policy must not permit transfers to other RIRs or NIRs
>>>>> whose policies do not support bi-directional transfers.
>>>>> And the problem statement on this draft policy is:
>>>>> Currently ARIN's requirement that inter-RIR transfer policies be
>>>>> reciprocal has a glaring hole in it in that RIRs which have NIRs and/or a
>>>>> two-hop RIR transfer process can be used to circumvent the intent of the
>>>>> requirement. Rather than eliminate the requirement, a better approach would
>>>>> be to close the loophole.
>>>>> All feedback is appreciated.
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>> -Alison Wood
>>>> 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:
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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>
More information about the ARIN-PPML