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

[Scott Leibrand]

Why is average /8s per continent the right metric there?  Wouldn't IPv4
addresses per capita be more like what we're looking for?  I haven't run
the numbers, but I suspect the ARIN region is higher than all four of the
other RIRs in terms of IPv4 addresses per capita.  If so, then simply
removing "reciprocal," would have the same effect (of allowing transfers to
regions with more need for IPv4 addresses than the ARIN region) and be much
simpler.

-Scott

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca> wrote:

> 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> 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] On Behalf Of David R
> Huberman
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:37 PM
> To: 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
> <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).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact 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/20170119/250fffdf/attachment.htm>