Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers (was:thoughts on prop-068)
thank you for the message and for the work of the jpnic community.
<sig chair hat = off>
> 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.
great!
> 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
good question. as usual, the devil is in the details (excuse the idiom,
but i suspect it is obvious).
well, the reason we put that clause in prop-067 was to answer the
concerns we heard about routing table growth. and, what you suggest
seems to be a conservative position along that line. i do not have a
strong opinion on this, we were just trying to meet the concerns we
heard from the community. so i will be interested to hear what others
have to say.
personally, i believe that, over the next decade or so, the size of a
minimum allocation will get smaller and smaller in order to spread the
increasingly scarce ipv4 space over multi-homed sites using nats (in
front of ipv6 or ipv4 lans). hence my support of prop-062 and the use
of the phrase "the current minimum APNIC allocation size" in prop-062
and prop-067.
> 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.
personally, this sounds reasonable to me. and i think that was what pfs
and i were hearing from the community when we drafted prop-067. but i
hope we will hear more from the community over the next few weeks.
<sig chair hat = on>
again, thanks for your message. i hope other members will also comment
on the transfer proposals.
i think it would be good to think of the transfer space not as competing
proposals, but as a collection of design points that need discussion and
a policy would be forged from the collection of decisions, e.g.
o minimum size (067-4.1)
o justify recipient use (067-4.2)
o inter-registry (067-4.3)
o seller must be full member (067-4.4 & 4.5)
o seller may not get more space (067-4.6)
o between nir members and others (your jpnic comment)
personally, i do not have strong opinions on most of these. i just want
to see this moved along in a simple fashion. after three "go back and
work on it some more" for prop-050, something had to shake up the game.
okutani-san, as i am a proposer in this space, and hence have a conflict
of interest, would you be willing to lead this discussion in manila?
randy