<div dir="ltr">Mike, <div><br></div><div>Thanks for the correction on CN and the link. I double checked of KR, TW, and VN, the three NIRs that don't allow outbound transfers, only KR has the two transfers of /22 from 2014 that I originally mentioned. </div><div><br></div><div>That is then less than 1% of the 303 transfers between APNIC and ARIN, and probably way less than 1% of the address space involved. </div><div><br></div><div>This only reinforces my conclusion, the cure is worse than disease!</div><div> </div><div>Thanks </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Mike Burns <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank">mike@iptrading.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_7940653427604907755WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi David,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/nir-ipv4-transfer/" target="_blank">https://www.apnic.net/manage-<wbr>ip/manage-resources/transfer-<wbr>resources/nir-ipv4-transfer/</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">CNNIC allows outbound transfers now.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">So of your statistics below, really only the two /22s to KRNIC are valid examples of transfers to one-way recipient NIRs.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Frankly I believe both KRNIC and VNNIC would both actually process an outbound transfer if one was ever presented to it. They are technically bound in some way to APNIC policies but I doubt this has ever been challenged.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Mike<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> ARIN-PPML [mailto:<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml-bounces@<wbr>arin.net</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>David Farmer<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 23, 2017 1:57 PM<br><b>To:</b> Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><br>> On Aug 18, 2017, at 05:14 , David Huberman <<a href="mailto:daveid@panix.com" target="_blank">daveid@panix.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> I am a US-based company and I operate a network on multiple continents.<br>><br>> I need to be able to move space from my home RIR of ARIN to other regions as I expand my network overseas.<br>><br>> The current policy that has been in effect for many years allows me to operate my network properly -- using ARIN blocks in ARIN, APNIC blocks in APNIC, and RIPE blocks in RIPE. The policy is predictable and I can plan network growth around it.<br>><br>> If this proposal passes, it will shut off transfers between ARIN and APNIC. This will hurt my business's finances. We purchased addresses in the ARIN region wth the intention of moving them to APNIC in the future. We did so because the size blocks we needed were not available in the APNIC region. So now we are talking about hurting my business for ... what reason? How do network operations benefit from this proposal?<br><br>Currently, there are certain registries that are operating like roach motels for IP addresses. KR-NIC, CN-NIC are examples.<u></u><u></u></p></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">There is no evidence that this presents anything more than a theoretical problem, in fact I went and looked at APNICs transfer logs;<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/transfer-logs/" target="_blank">https://www.apnic.net/manage-<wbr>ip/manage-resources/transfer-<wbr>resources/transfer-logs/</a><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">or<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://ftp.apnic.net/transfers/apnic/" target="_blank">http://ftp.apnic.net/<wbr>transfers/apnic/</a><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I found out of 281 transfers from ARIN to APNIC, there were 2 to KR and 15 to CN, and the 2 to KR were /22s and all the transfers to CN appear to be cloud providers from the best I can tell. There were also another 22 transfers from APNIC to ARIN, for a total of 303 transfers between APNIC and ARIN. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">You want to break 94% of the transfers between APNIC and ARIN because you don't like 6% of them. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><p class="MsoNormal">AfriNIC is discussing a similar proposal and a similar proposal was discussed in LACNIC.<u></u><u></u></p></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Help me understand this, we are going to break transfers to APNIC in hopes that ArfNIC and LACNIC won't pass a policy? Please explain how you expect that to work. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><p class="MsoNormal">It is hoped that by implementing this policy it will put pressure on those registries to be more cooperative with the global community in allowing bi-directional transfers.<br><br>That is how it helps network operations. Admittedly, it’s a short-term pain for a longer term gain, but that is the intent.<u></u><u></u></p></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">In my opinion the cure you propose is fare worse than the disease you seek to remedy. This policy will seriously damage what seems like a mostly well functioning system, primarily to influence a decision that is independent of the result.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I cannot support this policy.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">-- <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">==============================<wbr>=================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:(612)%20626-0815" value="+16126260815" target="_blank">612-626-0815</a><br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:(612)%20812-9952" value="+16128129952" target="_blank">612-812-9952</a><br>==============================<wbr>================= <u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">===============================================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>=============================================== </div>
</div></div>