Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers (was:thoughts on prop-068)
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
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.
izumi on behalf of JP community
Randy Bush wrote:
>> However, one thing that worries me is that if it was implemented
>> as is proposed, people wanting to buy ip addresses might go to a
>> region where address is cheaper (e.g. financially troubled ISPs
>> in developing countries, etc).
>> ...
>> Of course that may happen in an intra-RIR transfer as well
>> but i think the problem has a better chance of being solved
>> inside a region.
>> I though such potential threat should be mentioned in the document.
>> Or am I paranoid?
>
> i think 'patronizing' would be more the term. i believe that all
> the regions are aware of this, have wise hostmasters, ...
>
> randy
> * 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