<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Mike Burns <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Hi Scott,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">In the context of this proposal, may I ask what
would happen if APNIC accepted a transfer of ARIN legacy addresses and updated
their Whois, even if ARIN refused the transfer?</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I suppose what would matter in that case is who IANA pointed to. To date, we haven't seen cases where two different RIRs were both claiming authority for the same address block, and I don't expect to see that, as all of the RIRs are committed to operating within the "RIR system".</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">(Because the language of the proposal pointedly
excludes APNIC, if their current policy remains in place.)</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I know that ARIN could revoke and
reissue.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">How is inter-RIR conflict resolved, is there a
process in place for conflict resolution?</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I believe there is, but I don't know the details. I presume it would be a largely consensual process within the ASO/NRO/IANA framework (perhaps within the NRO EC?).</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Do the RIRs generally have compatible needs-based
transfer policies, I mean I know APNIC doesn't, but do the other RIRs have the
same 3-month window, for example?</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Is a difference in the needs window enough to
prevent a transfer?</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">If so, do we need to consider other RIRs and
the impact on inter-RIR transfers when we consider proposals to change the needs
window?</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">What if RIPE joins APNIC with a requirement like a
/24 maximum, is that something that makes the needs requirements
incompatible?</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't consider any such differences in timeframes, size minimums/maximums, etc. to be incompatibilities in the context of 2011-1. But ARIN has said that, as things stand today, the lack of explicit needs basis in APNIC's transfer policy would make it incompatible with 2011-1's requirement for "compatible, needs-based transfer policies". I hope we can come to an agreement with the APNIC community on language or interpretation that would be compatible with both regions' needs and preferences, but 2011-1 as I see it is just the first step in that direction: setting up a framework that would allow inter-RIR transfers once such incompatibilities are resolved somehow (or with other RIRs where such incompatibilities may not exist).</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I guess I am asking for a more detailed definition
of the word "compatible" in your proposed language.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Maybe that language is extraneous, as you are
already requiring both RIRs to agree?</font></div><font color="#888888"></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Operationally, the two are quite related, in that ARIN will not agree unless they assess the other RIR's transfer policy to be compatible. But the "RIRs agree" language is also there as a safety valve to explicitly allow an RIR to not agree to a transfer if it has reason to believe that the transfer would violate policy or law.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Scott (speaking only for myself, as usual)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="#888888">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
</font><blockquote style="border-left:#000000 2px solid;padding-left:5px;padding-right:0px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px"><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div style="font:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial;background:#e4e4e4"><b>From:</b>
<a title="scottleibrand@gmail.com" href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" target="_blank">Scott
Leibrand</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="owen@delong.com" href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">Owen DeLong</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="arin-ppml@arin.net" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML List</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 23, 2011 5:21 PM</div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Integrating
Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3</div>
<div><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>I could support this, but, I have a couple of lingering concerns.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I think that the last sentence dictates too much in the case of a
transfer to another region and should only apply to transfers within the
ARIN region.</div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. Possible slight revision
inline below...</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>I would like to see us relocate the</div>
<div>single aggregate clause to make it binding on the actual community
intent and if we're</div>
<div>going to turn 2011-1 into a policy to modify 8.3 anyway, we should
incorporate that</div>
<div>change.</div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I would like to see another proposal to do this (and to be discussed as a
counterpoint to ARIN-prop-144 in Philadelphia). </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<div>
<div>On May 23, 2011, at 15:54, Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" target="_blank">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div>
<div></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>In light of the discomfort a number of community and AC members feel
with the original 2011-1 text, I thought I'd make an attempt at
integrating it into the framework of NRPM 8.3, to see if the result would
be tighter and less ambiguous. Here's what I came up with:</div>
<div><br></div>8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients<br><br>In addition
to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be released to
ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for
transfer:<br>
<ul>
<li>to a specified organizational recipient within the ARIN region,
or
</li><li>to another RIR, for transfer to a specified organizational recipient
in that RIR's service region, if the two RIRs agree and maintain
compatible, needs-based transfer policies. </li></ul>
<div>Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by
organizations that can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a
single aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current
ARIN policies.
<br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>How about "<span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px">Such number resources may only be received under RSA by
organizations that can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single
aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN, or
recipient RIR, policies." ?</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px">Or, feel free to suggest text...</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px">-Scott</span></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div><br></div>
<div>For reference, existing policy reads:<br>8.3. Transfers to Specified
Recipients<br><br>In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number
resources within the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized
resource holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified
organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be
received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and
can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single aggregate, in the
exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>And original 2011-1 text reads:</div>
<div>Any RIR's resource registrant may transfer IPv4 addresses to
the resource registrant of another RIR as long as the two RIRs agree
and maintain compatible, needs-based transfer policies that exercise
Internet stewardship consistent with the values expressed in
RFC2050.</div></div></blockquote></div></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>PPML</span><br><span>You
are receiving this message because you are subscribed
to</span><br><span>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</span><br><span>Unsubscribe or
manage your mailing list subscription at:</span><br><span><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></span><br><span>Please
contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if
you experience any
issues.</span></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><p>
</p><hr><div class="im">
<p></p>_______________________________________________<br>PPML<br>You are
receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>the ARIN Public Policy
Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list
subscription at:<br><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>Please
contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</div><p></p></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br>