[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Aug 23 14:23:05 EDT 2017
Agreed: this proposal is a very bad idea for many reasons, and I would
encourage the AC to abandon it prior to the next public policy meeting.
If you're reading this message on PPML, feel like this policy is generally
a bad idea, but haven't commented on it yet: please do. The AC needs to
hear clearly from the community that a draft policy is a bad idea, either
from PPML or from a public policy meeting, before they'll generally feel
comfortable abandoning a draft policy for lack of community support. In
the absence of such clarity on PPML, this would likely go to the PPM as a
draft policy for discussion there, which would be a waste of everyone's
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> 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>
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML