[arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

Now that discussion reveals that "IPv4 Inventory", refers to the total 
number of IPv4 addresses that a specific RIR has under its management, and 
not the amount of IPv4 addresses remaining for assignment, I will state 
the problems I see with the proposal.  However, I remain open minded and 
am asking questions in order to make up my mind.

If any of the history of numbering management that I state below is wrong, 
please let me know, as it might change my viewpoint.

1) Originally there was effectively only one RIR worldwide.

2) This original RIR's Resources were placed under control of ARIN.

3) When each of the RIR's other than ARIN were formed, all resources that 
were assigned to entities within the region of the new RIR, that were 
under management of ARIN, or the RIR which previously managed the 
space (RIPE to AFRINIC in that case) were transfered to the new RIR.

4) The Previous RIR's who controled resources before the formation of 
LACNIC or AFRINIC did not have a policy in place that discriminated 
against any portion of the world, and would if presented with a request 
for IPv4 resources, would process that request using the same policy that 
was used for resources assigned in the remaining portions of that RIR's 
Territory.

With each of these things said, I now draw some conclusions. 
Specifically, it is not North America's or ARIN's fault that LACNIC and 
AFRINIC has less resources under management than ARIN or RIPE or APNIC. 
Had networks needing resources existed during this time, and all the way 
past their formation up until that date that IANA ran out of /8's, that 
RIR could have received IPv4 addresses from the free pool on an equal 
basis.  While the original Class A networks were given out a lot more 
loosely than ARIN's standards, this did not change the fact that IANA had 
a free pool after these original Class A networks were assigned, and did 
provide additional /8's to any RIR who could show that they had exhausted 
their free pool below the standard that was applied to all 5 RIR's.

In my opinion the only reason that LACNIC and AFRINIC did not have as many 
/8's, was the growth in the APNIC region compared to all other regions, 
which during that time exceeded every other RIR, including ARIN.  In fact, 
it was APNIC's request for more space that triggered the exhaustion of the 
free pool.  Technically, when LACNIC and AFRINIC received their final /8, 
it was not totally fair to the other RIR's with more addresses under 
management.  In fact, this final non proportional oversupply at AFRINIC is 
likely the only reason that AFRINIC is the only RIR with a general free 
pool.  Instead of a full /8 to each region, maybe this should have been 
done more proportional to each region's total address space under 
management.

For a market based solution to IPv4 addresses, addresses need to be able 
to flow both ways.  AFRINIC and LACNIC can argue that we are the small 
guys, and we need to be protected against transfers out.  However, I can 
just as easily argue that ARIN is being used as a worldwide piggy bank of 
IPv4 addresses and should also adopt an anti-transfer out policy.  As long 
as things move both ways, we can argue that the market effect is 
important, but for this to work, it must be bidirectional everywhere. 
While ARIN is the leader in supplying directed transfer addresses, market 
conditions could change worldwide, causing more transfers from another 
RIR.  For an example, say if China were to require ALL internet to use 
IPv6, and forbid the use of IPv4 in their country, a large number of IPv4 
addresses allocated to China would suddenly be available on the transfer 
market.

Some similar event that is now unknown could drive the IPv4 addresses of 
the LACNIC and AFRINIC into the market, and if this policy were adopted 
would be unfair to the markets that would be forbidden from these 
addresses being in the market because of the lack of a bidirectional 
transfer rule.

My gut tells me that noone should get a pass on bidirectional transfers, 
and I am leaning NO at this time, but could be convinced otherwise for the 
proper reason.  I do not think "Past Discrimination" is that reason.  The 
true past problem was lack of past network growth, vs other regions.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.



On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, ARIN wrote:

> The following has been revised:
>
> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR 
> Transfers
>
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_4.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will 
> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft 
> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in 
> the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>
> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> * Technically Sound
> * Supported by the Community
>
> The PDP can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR 
> Transfers
>
> Version Date: 6 September 2017
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> AFRINIC and LACNIC are currently considering one-way inter-RIR transfer 
> proposals. Those RIR communities feel a one-way policy a policy that allows 
> network operators in their regions to obtain space from another region and 
> transfer it into AFRINIC and LACNIC may best meet the needs of the operators 
> in that region.
>
> ARIN staff, in reply to an inquiry from AFRINIC, have formally indicated that 
> ARINs 8.4 policy language will not allow ARIN to participate in such one-way 
> transfers. The staff formally indicate to AFRINIC that the word reciprocal in 
> 8.4 prohibits ARIN from allowing ARIN-registered space to transfer directly 
> to AFRINIC (in this context).
>
> ARIN as a community should recognize that other RIR operator communities have 
> different needs than we do. We should recognize that:
>
> - network operators in AFRINIC in LACNIC have need to obtain space in the 
> market;
>
> - have reasons they think are important to not allow two-way transfers; and
>
> - we should understand that the history of the RIR system has led to LACNIC 
> and AFRINIC having multiple orders of magnitude less IPv4 address space than 
> ARIN does.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Add the following sentence after the first sentence of NRPM 8.4:
>
> Inter-RIR transfers may take place to an RIR with a non-reciprocal inter-RIR 
> transfer policy only when the recipient RIR has an IPv4 total inventory less 
> than the average (mean) of the IPv4 total inventory among all of the RIRs.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Upon the ratification of any inter-RIR transfer 
> policy at another RIR that is one-way as described in the problem statement.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>