[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers
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;
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
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.
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...
More information about the ARIN-PPML