[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers
Geoff Huston wrote:
> On 16/02/2009, at 10:51 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> i.e. We support this element of the proposal(s).
>>
>> I have two clarifications about inter-registry transfers:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> Hi Izumi,
>
> thanks for your report on the discussions in JP on these topics.
>
> Yes, you are correct in that interpretation of my intent as the author
> of this policy proposal. In this example case the prefix size needs to
> meet the apnic minimum size criteria AND the RIPE minimum size
> criteria so that a transfer in either direction that spans RIPE and
> APNIC would need to be a minimum size of a /21 if this is the RIPE
> policy.
okay. nice to be confirm that. thanks.
>> 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.
>>
>
> I suppose that in terms of strict formalism the answer would be "no,
> that would be an incorrect supposition" from the strictly limited
> perspective of this policy proposal. The proposal does not have
> optional components that can be adjudged by the community
> independently as to general consensus in acceptance. But of course the
> policy process is one where proposals are put before the community in
> an attempt to find what would gain such general acceptance, and if
> proposal 68 fails and there is an identified need to address the
> specific issues relating to transfers that encompasses members of NIRs
> and members of APNIC then further policy proposals would doubtless
> appear that would address that specific issue independently of the
> inter-RIR topic.
So transfers between APNIC and NIR account holders will not be allowed
if prop-068 gets rejected.
I can sort of understand to make inter-RIR transfers as a seperate issue
to be discussed but...
A strong request from ISPs in Japan is that they want to be a part of
transfers within the APNIC region as they are no different from direct
APNIC LIRs/other ISPs. Please include us too! :-)
Ofcourse, we'd like to see opinions within the region so may I suggest
to make a seperate poll on transfers between APNIC-NIR account holders
from inter RIR-transfers?
(Make it a choice of NIR community if they want to join)
My hopefull guess is that even the people who don't support inter RIR
transfers may find it acceptable to have inter-registry (APNIC-NIR)
transfers within the APNIC region at least.
BTW, am I right in assuming that prop-067 doesn't make this distiction?
(transfers between APNIC and NIR account holders are accepted if the
proposal reaches consensus)
> Of course in all this flurry of hypothetical future policy proposals
> there is the time element lurking behind all this, and I'm not sure
> that the general economic downturn has really altered the basic
> dynamics of IPv4 address consumption all that much in terms of gaining
> extra years to debate the issue (check out http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/predict.png
> to see the change in predicted exhaustion dates over time), so at
> some point the inevitable will occur and the IPv4 address allocation
> system used today will come to a natural halt. We probably need to
> find some acceptable answers to these issues this year as to what we
> do afterwards. (Unless of course we crave the added excitement of
> living right on the edge! :-))
yes, which is exactly why ISPs/operators in Japan wish to have transfers
between APNIC/NIR members to be allowed as well.
(it is a tempting crave but I'll keep it as a personal sentiment)
izumi
