Re: [sig-policy] [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
- To: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
- From: Tom Vest <tvest at eyeconomics dot com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:26:11 -0500
- Cc: ppml at arin dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net, Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic dot net>
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <47B0D496.2030800 at apnic dot net>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <47B0794F.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <47B0C378.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <47B0D496.email@example.com>
On Feb 11, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
Raul Echeberria wrote:Geoff. One observation. Accepting transfers only within the region is a way to keep the IP addresses within the regions in which they were originally allocated. I don't know if it is good or not, but a fact. If the transfer of legacy space is also admited, it has a great impact in other regions, since most of the unused space belonging to the legacy blocks, will feed regional markets in the developed countries. This is the promotion of regional markets instead of global markets. My opinion is that the regional approach to a global poblem that is the IPv4 deployment is not the right approach.There are two issues that I can readily see here - the first is theissue of defining the mechanics of a cross-rir transfer. and the second is the assessment of the value of the intended outcomes and the risk ofother unintended outcomes. Concerning mechanics, in looking at the APNIC and ARIN proposals they both take the approach of "qualification" of the two parties to a transfer. One approach would be to 'recognise' the qualification fromanother region - i.e. taking an ARIN perspective a "transferor" (is that really an english word? ;-)) meets the criteria listed in section 8.4.1.To extend this to allow cross-RIR transfers it would be a case of adding "or meets the criteria as listed (insert reference to the transfer policy of another RIR) for members of (RIR). Similarly the conditions of the transferee could be augmented by reference to the relevant qualifications in the policies of other RIRs. So in terms of extending the mechanics of the policy proposals to encompass cross-RIR transfers then I'd suggest that there are ways to achieve this though the use of mutual recognition of each RIR's qualification processes. (I should note a slight inaccuracy here from my previous posting - I thought that the presentation at the October 2007 RIPE meeting :http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/vanmook- v4policy-change.pdfhad been submitted into the RIPE policy process as a proposal, but it looks like this has not happened as yet as there is no proposal listed at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/index.html)The second issue is perhaps the one that deserves further consideration.There is a strong argument in favour of looking at this issues of transfers from a global rather than regional perspective. The regionaldistribution of IPv4 addresses today, the regional levels of demand for IPv4 addresses, and the projections of demand within each region do not appear to be well-aligned, and an imposition of a regional 'containment'of transfers may well lead to less than desireable outcomes. One question I have is whether a global transfer model would run the risk of unintended outcomes. Would a global transfer domain createinequities and imbalances in the residual IPv4 internet that may requiresome other form of intervention or mediation to redress? What are the risks of such outcomes, and it is possible to propose some policy mechanisms that may mitigate such risks?
In order to avoid potential accusations (if not reality) of abuse of such a inter-RIR transfer system, I suspect that the scope of inter- RIR coordination would have to go far beyond reciprocal accreditation of recipient qualification policies, extending at least to verification policies, and possibly to direct (i.e., cross-regional) verification of "need" itself. Granted, this begs the question of how the "needs verification" or qualifying process will work even in an intra-regional context when number resources are much scarcer and perceived to be much more valuable -- but I think that question is looming/unavoidable in any case.
If the RIR are empowered and obliged to sign off on *both* inbound and outbound transfers, that should immunize them from both corrosive internal pressures and corrosive external criticisms, etc., making the overall system more durable.
(personal wild notion only) TV
regards, Geoff* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *_______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy