Re: [sig-policy] prop-096: Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in
It would take the only enlightened RIR back into the dark ages of fantasy
land that the others are currently hallucinating in. Expecting organizations
to beg for approval of an open market transfer will simply drive the
transactions underground. The potential for denial of the recipient's
'worthiness' coupled with the immediate 'RIR awareness' that an assigned
block is no longer needed by the holder and therefore subject to
reclamation, is guaranteed to make people avoid informing their local RIR of
the transaction they are conducting. Once the information in the database
becomes stale it will be virtually impossible to reconstruct, and therefore
will be useless to all.
This proposal does nothing to enhance the operational stability of the
Internet.
Tony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Terence Zhang YH
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:30 AM
> To: Policy SIG
> Subject: [sig-policy] prop-096: Maintaining demonstrated needs
> requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal, 'Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer
> policy after the final /8 phase', has been sent to the Policy SIG for
> review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 31 in Hong Kong
> SAR, China, 21-25 February 2011.
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
> important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
> express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
> so, tell the community about your situation.
> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> effective?
>
>
> Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
>
>
> Gaurab, Ching-Heng, and Terence
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-096-v001: Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer
> policy after the final /8 phase
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Author: Tomohiro Fujisaki
>
> Co-authors: Masaru Akai
> Fuminori Tanizaki
> Toshio Tachibana
> Akira Nakagawa
>
> Version: 1
>
> Date: 25 January 2011
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ---------------------------
>
> All other RIRs that adopt the IPv4 transfer policy require demonstrated
> need at the time of the transfer.
>
> AfriNIC:
>
> AfriNIC permits transfers of IPv4 addresses as part of name
> changes
> and transfers of tangible assets associated with addresses.
> Utilization of the addresses must be verified. See Section 8.1,
> "Introduction" in "IPv4 Address Allocation Policies":
>
> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2005-v4-001.htm
>
>
> ARIN:
>
> ARIN policy requires that transfers to specified recipients can
> take place provided the recipient can demonstrate the need for
> such
> resources, as a single aggregate, in the exact amount which they
> can justify under current ARIN policies. See Section 8.3,
> "Transfers to Specified Recipients" in the "ARIN Number Resource
> Policy Manual":
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight2
>
>
> LACNIC:
>
> LACNIC policy has a transfer policy that will take effect when
> LACNIC or any of its NIRs becomes unable, for the first time, to
> cover an IPv4 block allocation or assignment because of a lack of
> resources. Under this policy, the recipient of the transfer must
> be
> able to justify its need for the IPv4 addresses. See Section
> 2.3.2.18, "Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region," in
> the LACNIC Policy Manual (v1.4):
>
> http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual3.html
>
>
> RIPE:
>
> The RIPE policy permits transfers of complete or partial blocks of
> IPv4 allocations. The RIPE NCC will evaluate the real need of the
> receiving LIR as per the policies for further allocation. For
> more,
> see section 5.5, "Transfers of Allocations", in "IPv4 Address
> Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service
> Region:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-509.html
>
>
>
> 4. Details
> -----------
>
> It is proposed that recipients of transfers continue to be required to
> justify their need for IPv4 address space after the final /8 policy is
> activated.
>
>
> 5. Pros/Cons
> -------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> - It allows APNIC to maintain consistency with the pre-final /8
> transfer policy and to observe its impact before any potential
> future removal of the justification requirement.
>
> - It places APNIC policy in line with other RIRs on the transfer
> conditions during APNIC's final /8 phase.
>
> - It will also prevent the APNIC region from having its address
> space transferred to other regions without the recipient in the
> other region needing to demonstrate a need for those addresses.
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> - Some may argue that justifying need is an unecessary additional
> requirement to the transfer of IPv4 addresses in the final /8
> phase and could potentially be a barrier to the accurate
> recording of transferred IPv4 blocks registered in the APNIC
> Whois Database.
>
> However, if organizations have a genuine need for IPv4
> addresses,
> they should be able to explain and justify their requirements
> for
> transfered IPv4 addresses, as they do before the final /8 phase
> today.
>
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC
> -------------------
>
> This will change the condition of the transfer in the APNIC region in
> the final /8 phase. However, since the criteria remains the same as
> today, Members will actually not feel the impact.
>
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> ------------------
>
> It is the NIR's choice as to whether to adopt this policy.
>
> * 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