Re: [apnic-talk] Demonstrated Need Transfers - Seeking Opinions
for the recipient or transfers to show DN.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-095
------ From the Policy ------
5.2.3 Conditions on the recipient of the transfer
The conditions of the transfer defined by RIR where the
recipient organization holds an account, will apply to the
recipient of the transfer:
- For transfers from an account holder of the counterpart
RIR(*) to APNIC account holder, the conditions defined
in APNIC transfer policy at the time of the transfer
will apply
- For transfers from APNIC account holder an account
holder of to the counterpart RIR(*), the conditions
defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the
time of the transfer will apply
---------
prop-96 quickly places it back.
https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096
------ From the Policy ------
1. Introduction
----------------
This is a proposal to maintain the requirement for recipients of IPv4
transfers to justify their need for address space beyond the current
allocation phase and into the final /8 phase.
2. Summary of the current problem
----------------------------------
The current APNIC transfer policy removes the requirement to
demonstrate a need for transferred IPv4 addresses after the final /8
phase begins.
However, this removal of justification of need once APNIC enters the
final /8 phase will make APNIC the only RIR that does not require a
demonstrated need to be shown for an IPv4 transfer to be approved.
If an inter-RIR transfer policy, such as prop-095, were to be approved,
given that any transfers would be conducted according to the transfer
policy of the source RIR, it would disadvantage APNIC if other RIRs
were to be able to transfer IPv4 addresses from APNIC without requiring
any justification.
Contrast this with transfers where APNIC is the recipient of the
transfer, and must follow the transfer policy of the source RIR. Since
all other RIRs require justification in transfers, it would be more
difficult to have transfers of addresses into the APNIC region than it
would for addresses to be transferred out of the APNIC region.
In addition, having no justification requirement in the final /8 phase
is raising concerns in some RIR regions and making them reluctant to
recognize any inter-RIR transfer policy with APNIC. Therefore, it is
possible that even if APNIC were to adopt prop-095, no other RIR may be
willing to engage in such inter-RIR transfers with APNIC.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com> wrote:
> Hey Dean,
>
> Can you please remind me which policy number that was... clearly I missed
> something.
>
>
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
> v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business
> skeeve at v4now dot com ; www.v4now.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
> wrote:
>>
>> We still have DN for one reason and one reason only.
>> ARIN requires it as part of their transfer policy.
>>
>> We know this because the community already removed the requirement for DN
>> for IPv4 addresses post exhaustion once, and then quickly had to put it back
>> in because we stood to miss out on ARIN transfers.
>>
>> So to my mind the community has already spoken and this is what it has
>> said:
>>
>> "We don't want/care about DN for post exhaustion IPv4 addresses. We've
>> already voted to remove it once. We *DO* care about transfers from ARIN, so
>> we put DN back. Thats the only reason we have DN."
>>
>> So here you go community... am I wrong with that statement?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dean,
>>>
>>> I am simply asking for opinions so that when/if something happens in the
>>> other regions that the APNIC region has already discussed it, or at least
>>> had opening discussions.
>>>
>>> Do you think that we should avoid any discussion on the matter before
>>> something happens and be reactionary? or seek to open a discussion and get
>>> the feeling from the community?
>>>
>>> Lately there has been a lot of comments on involving the community
>>> more... which is what I am trying to facilitate by bringing up the topic.
>>>
>>>
>>> ...Skeeve
>>>
>>> Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
>>> v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business
>>> skeeve at v4now dot com ; www.v4now.com
>>>
>>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>>
>>> facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>>
>>> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>>>
>>>
>>> IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean at deanpemberton dot com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Too true Bill,
>>>>
>>>> For me the trigger points for any further conversation on DN are:
>>>>
>>>> ARIN changes or relaxes its policy on requiring DN for transfers.
>>>> *OR*
>>>> APNIC members decide they no longer need transfers from ARIN.
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to talk about one of those things (the second), the first is
>>>> none of my business.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dean
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch dot net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On May 18, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot com> wrote:
>>>> >> ARIN, RIPE and APNIC all have demonstrated need at present.
>>>> >> RIPE and ARIN are having discussions about removing or lowering the
>>>> >> bar.
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, RIPE is. I wouldnât say thatâs true of ARIN. I mean, there are
>>>> > always people talking about stuff, but thereâs a difference between people
>>>> > talking and a policy proposal that has any support or chance of becoming
>>>> > future policy.
>>>> >
>>>> > -Bill
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > apnic-talk mailing list
>>>> > apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
>>>> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dean
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>>> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dean
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apnic-talk mailing list
>> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>>
>
--
Regards,
Dean