Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers (was:thoughts on prop-068)

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

hi okutani-san,

thank you for the message and for the work of the jpnic community.

<sig chair hat = off>

> As a related point, we had a bit of discussions here in JP over
> whether to allow an Inter-RIR/NIR transfer and opinions were generally
> favourable towards allowing inter-RIR/NIR transfers.

great!

> 1. Size of minimum transfer
>     How would the minimum size of transfer apply for inter-RIR
>     transfers?
> 
>     Read the proposals that says the source and the recipient follow
>     policies of respective regions - so would the policy of the region
>     with shorter prefix apply?
> 
>      e.g. APNIC accountholders (min:/22 or /24) --> RIPE (min:/21)
>           the minimum size of transfer = /21

good question.  as usual, the devil is in the details (excuse the idiom,
but i suspect it is obvious).

well, the reason we put that clause in prop-067 was to answer the
concerns we heard about routing table growth.  and, what you suggest
seems to be a conservative position along that line.  i do not have a
strong opinion on this, we were just trying to meet the concerns we
heard from the community.  so i will be interested to hear what others
have to say.

personally, i believe that, over the next decade or so, the size of a
minimum allocation will get smaller and smaller in order to spread the
increasingly scarce ipv4 space over multi-homed sites using nats (in
front of ipv6 or ipv4 lans).  hence my support of prop-062 and the use
of the phrase "the current minimum APNIC allocation size" in prop-062
and prop-067.

> 2. Allowing NIR-APNIC transfers
>    Could we suppose transfers between APNIC-NIR(at least JPNIC) account
>    holders can be accomodated even if there is no consensus on
>    inter-RIR transfers? (i.e. prop-068)
> 
>    We strongly hope it can since NIR account holders are no different
>    from others in the APNIC region.

personally, this sounds reasonable to me.  and i think that was what pfs
and i were hearing from the community when we drafted prop-067.  but i
hope we will hear more from the community over the next few weeks.

<sig chair hat = on>

again, thanks for your message.  i hope other members will also comment
on the transfer proposals.

i think it would be good to think of the transfer space not as competing
proposals, but as a collection of design points that need discussion and
a policy would be forged from the collection of decisions, e.g.
  o minimum size (067-4.1)
  o justify recipient use (067-4.2)
  o inter-registry (067-4.3)
  o seller must be full member (067-4.4 & 4.5)
  o seller may not get more space (067-4.6)
  o between nir members and others (your jpnic comment)

personally, i do not have strong opinions on most of these.  i just want
to see this moved along in a simple fashion.  after three "go back and
work on it some more" for prop-050, something had to shake up the game.

okutani-san, as i am a proposer in this space, and hence have a conflict
of interest, would you be willing to lead this discussion in manila?

randy