<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Dear Mike and all, </font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/01/2017 22:02, Mike Burns wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:047401d27297$551a97c0$ff4fc740$@iptrading.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
I would like to clarify that based on <b>current</b> RIPE policies,
the current inbound policy proposal in the Afrinic region would
indeed be compatible. However, there is ofcourse always the
possibility that these policies will change in the future. <br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Ingrid Wijte<br>
RIPE NCC<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:047401d27297$551a97c0$ff4fc740$@iptrading.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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 [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>] On Behalf Of David R
Huberman
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:37 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>
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.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1803">http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1803</a>
-inbound-transfer-policy
That's my opinion. What's yours?
Thanks,
David
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, ARIN wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>