Re: [apnic-talk] Demonstrated Need Transfers - Seeking Opinions
So there we go...
We decided that we didn't need DN for transfers (prop-50). Then we
decided that we needed it again (prop-96) so that ARIN would play with
us.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Adam Gosling <adam at apnic dot net> wrote:
> Skeeve, Dean
>
> The removal of DN in APNIC transfers was originally endorsed under
> prop-50, see below. For a very short time after IPv4 exhaustion APNIC
> actually operated under this policy before prop-096: Maintaining
> demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase
> added it back in.
>
> --
> prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
> http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0009/12420/prop-050-v005.txt
>
>
>
> Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
>
> - Prior to the exhaustion of APNIC's IPv4 space (i.e. prior to the
> use of the "final /8" allocation measures) recipients of
> transfers will be required to justify their need for address
> space. After this time there is no requirement for any form of
> evaluation of requirements for eligibility.
>
> --
>
> Also of note is that the ARIN AC recently accepted "ARIN-prop-204 Removing
> Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft Policy.
> <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-May/028486.html>. As Bill
> rightly notes, this is a very early stage in the ARIN PDP.
>
> The status page for the proposal is
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_14.html
>
> This proposal would change the DN for ARIN recipients only. ARINâs policy
> on Inter-RIR transfers may be found here
> <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight4> It states that
> "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the
> transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.â
>
> Currently the conditions on the recipient of a transfer are: "The
> conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be defined by
> the policies of the receiving RIR.â
>
> So my understanding is that while APNIC is (of course) free to change itâs
> transfers DN at any time, the ARIN Secretariat must be satisfied APNIC has
> a âcompatible, needs-basedâ policy, or it would not be able to authorise
> the transfer.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Gosling
> Internet Policy Development Consultant email: adam at apnic dot net
> APNIC
> sip: adam at voip dot apnic dot net
> http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7
> 3858 3100
> ________________________________________________________________________
> * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
>
>
>
>
> On 19/05/2014 10:05 am, "Dean Pemberton" <dean at deanpemberton dot com> wrote:
>
>>The details of APNIC transfer policy prop-95 removed the requirement
>>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
>>_______________________________________________
>>apnic-talk mailing list
>>apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>
--
Regards,
Dean