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. ARIN?s 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.? > > 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.? > > So my understanding is that while APNIC is (of course) free to change it?s > transfers DN at any time, the ARIN Secretariat must be satisfied APNIC has > a
?compatible, needs-based? 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 wouldn?t say that?s true of ARIN. I mean, there >>>>>>are >>>>>> > always people talking about stuff, but there?s 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 >