[arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 16:13:59 EST 2017
I would agree with this, and would support a policy proposal to remove the
"reciprocal" requirement in ARIN inter-RIR transfer policy, leaving
It looks like this would simply be a one-word change, removing
"reciprocal," from the first sentence of 8.4.
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
> addresses are again much more abundant in ARIN than they are in AFRINIC or
> 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.
> Mike Burns
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David R
> 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
> 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,
> the language looks very similar to 8.2 and 8.3 language we've had at ARIN
> for a very long time.
> That's my opinion. What's yours?
> 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
> 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