Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

Hi Randy and all,


Randy Bush wrote:
> 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!

I did notice a few people claiming we should go one step at a time,
first start with APNIC region then extend to other RIRs.

There is a routing operators who expressed concerns about the impact on
routing to allow cross-RIR transfers at this stage, like as the question
about the size i mentioned earlier, impact on region-based filtering, etc.

Anyways, most people supported the concept of inter-RIR, either we do it
in one go/take two steps.

>> 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).

yes. and hopefully it's not a big one :-)

> 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.

Okay.
Either way, people just want to understand what to expect.

> 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.

Right. Point taken.

>> 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?
> 

I'd be happy to personally but I want to make sure comments from JP
operators can be shared in Manila by someone else, etc.

Let me think about it and get back to you soon.


izumi