[arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility

[Kevin Blumberg]

I would like to see it a little more nuanced than just the removal of reciprocity.

I took the following statistics from the NRO website (https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRO_Q3_2016-2.pdf)

Number of /8 Assigned to Regions
ARIN 36
AFRINIC 5
LACNIC 9
RIPE NCC 35
APNIC 45

I would prefer a sentence, that allows for the relaxing of the reciprocal rule, in the event the gaining RIR is below the global average in IPv4 space.

Kevin Blumberg

From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:14 PM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility

I would agree with this, and would support a policy proposal to remove the "reciprocal" requirement in ARIN inter-RIR transfer policy, leaving the "compatible, needs-based" requirement.

It looks like this would simply be a one-word change, removing "reciprocal," from the first sentence of 8.4.

-Scott

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com<mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote:
Hi David,

An inbound-only policy is also under development at LACNIC and will hit the
discussion list there next week.

RIPE has officially said they will accept the provisions of the AFRINIC
inbound policy and will send RIPE addresses to AFRINIC should the AFRINIC
policy be implemented as written.

RIPE has told me they will treat any pending LACNIC policy the same way, if
the operative language is similar.

LACNIC also has a relatively rigorous needs-test for transfers, AFAIK they
even require the use of NAT.

I think the ARIN community must take notice of the relative superabundance
of IPv4 space in the region and how less address-rich regions must feel in
this age of exhaust.

The recent IPv4 market analysis at RIPE indicates that the transfer market
is fueled to a large extent by legacy address acting as supply. These legacy
addresses are again much more abundant in ARIN than they are in AFRINIC or
LACNIC.

My personal experience is that the LACNIC transfer market is suffering from
a lack of supply, and buyers are being asked to pay higher prices due to
scarcity. I believe that it is in the best interests of the Internet for
there to be a global market in IPv4 addresses. Unfortunately the
address-poor regions feel shortchanged, and they view any two-way policy as
a potential to lose some of their paltry amount to richer regions.

As a half-way step towards a truly global market, accepting that some
regions (and some NIRs) will not allow outbound transfers today, I believe
ARIN should join RIPE and remove the language about reciprocity, while
maintaining the requirement for compatible needs testing.

Regards,
Mike Burns





-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of David R
Huberman
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:37 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility


Last week, ARIN staff sent to this list a copy of their response to AFRINIC
on inter-RIR transfer policy compatability.

The AFRINIC community is considering a one-way transfer policy as a
bootstrap for the few years until they reach IPv4 runout, at which point it
would aim to become two-way.

I feel like as a member of the internet community, that ARIN (we - us - the
PPML participants) should be accepting that an RIR in a different region has
different needs than we do. I think we should allow African internet
operators to obtain blocks from sellers in the ARIN region, and transfer
them to AFRINIC to meet their needs.

The AFRINIC inbound transfer policy is very ARIN-like. It's needs-basis, and
the language looks very similar to 8.2 and 8.3 language we've had at ARIN
for a very long time.

cf.

http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1803
-inbound-transfer-policy

That's my opinion.  What's yours?

Thanks,
David


On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, ARIN wrote:

> To PPML -
>
> As a result of policy discussions in the AFRINIC region, ARIN is
> providing the following to information:
>
> On 30 September 2016 ARIN received a query from AFRINIC requesting an
> assessment on the compatibility of AFRINIC proposed
> 1803-inbound-transfer-policy with ARIN policy. On 6 October 2016 ARIN
> responded with the following assessment:
>
> Based on ARINb

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170120/ac5dc4f4/attachment.htm>