Re: [sig-policy] A new version of the proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region"

  • To: "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] A new version of the proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region"
  • From: Satoru Tsurumaki <>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:01:06 +1100
  • Delivered-to:
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=DLLFZuyzBHjK+ovhw/yBctA+staaS4obOErfFsEdFTs=; b=gUBKWP0Ws/KI/uo5x9MTw9cyBjRg02LeNvmA9JKTvSjvQjN1TwILMBWUFDLmq2gFlL ygzKT8myPjruqkBAVDGQ/dHOwOU+LYAb6tVNqAlpARQdfLt9ZA6u9lVS8LyN/UVyw97+ jwZScX09V1auC3YgZ8y5qgnVJCcQXtisy79KOcNn58wUa51Wc/p32YeGWaW3uz7KYyqL etLeTpk5I7MTTodeADhf+V8zaP4zip7DgyJYBue3wVA+I5XIFyPHIS4EhHOibePR8Hno B5V/M4JpvCUmiCwYv7O4BYj5Ai2QdW6y4AWhgjjYR5dVZxQTX12PtBe+VR/DIO8hY/Ue nmaQ==
  • In-reply-to: <>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <>

    • Dear Colleagues,

      I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.

      I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-118,

      based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals.

      Many supporting opinions were expressed on this proposal.

      However, many comments were expressed that proposer should feedback for the discussion which we discussed in past OPM.

      Below are details of opinions expressed.

       - Demand for 5 years: It is difficult to clarify a demand of address needs for both APNIC and LIR.

       - The policy should be looser. it will increase a possibilities of address transfer if time frame are expand from 2 years to 5 years.

       - The reason why APNIC clarify the request of transfer is for tranferring from ARIN. So inter-APNIC case, it not need originally and there is no reason to make a a clarification strictly.I agree with the purpose of the proposal.

       - Nevertheless, proposer should respond to the past comments.

       - I'd like to request to proposer to explain the intention of copying the implementation contents of RIPE NCC as it is.

       - The content of the previous discussion has not been reflected and it is not refined. Although the position of the proposal is not in an opposite position, the proponent should explain more. Please answer the discussion at APNIC 44.


      Satoru Tsurumaki

      2018-08-08 4:44 GMT+11:00 Sumon Ahmed Sabir <>:
      Dear SIG members

      A new version of the proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region"
      has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

      Information about earlier versions is available from:

      You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

        - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
        - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
        - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?

      Please find the text of the proposal below.

      Kind Regards,

      Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
      APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


      prop-118-v002: No need policy in APNIC region


      Proposer: Heng Lu

      1. Problem Statement

      Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the
      recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend
      to transfer.

      Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to
      enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming
      from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect
      the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers.

      2. Objective of policy change

      Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders.
      Ease some administration on APNIC staff, increase database accuracy.

      3. Situation in other regions

      RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first
      allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their
      intended use of the resources.

      ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN.

      AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource
      request from AFRINIC based on needs.

      LACNIC, no transfers, need based request.

      Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer
      policies,  ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy
      from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE

      4. Proposed policy solution

      Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility:

        - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its
          service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating
          to transfers within its service region.

        - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to
          have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the
          APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within
          5 years.

        - When transferring Internet number resources to another RIR, the APNIC
          will follow the transfer policies that apply within its own service 
          The APNIC will also comply with the commitments imposed by the 
          RIR in order to facilitate the transfer.

      5. Advantages / Disadvantages


        - Harmonisation with RIPE region.
        - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC
          and RIPE.
        - Maintains a compatibility with ARIN.
        - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on
          potentially badly documented needs.
        - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff.



      6. Impact on resource holders


      7. References

      *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      sig-policy mailing list