Hi everyone,
I agree with Skeeve that we should start a discussion
about Demonstrated Need (DN).
let me try and make a summary of current changes to
transfers policies:
A. RIPE region
currently the RIPE region does no longer have a DN for
Intra-RIR transfers. Policy proposal 2013-03 has cleanup
the IPv4 policy and removed the DN for anything except the
request of the last /22 from the RIPE NCC.
Additionally, the Inter-RIR policy proposal 2012-02 will
be withdrawn and a new policy proposal will be made
shortly, as announced during RIPE68. [1]
The new policy proposal will be made soon and it will say
that:
- for transfers to other RIRs:
"When internet resources are transferred to another RIR,
then RIPE NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow
the transfer to the receiving LIR."
- for transfers into the RIPE region:
"RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfill any
requirements of the sending RIR"
In other words, the transfer into the RIPE region will
have DN only if the sending RIR will have such a policy.
There will be no DN requirement for transfers from the
RIPE region. However, the receiving RIR will need to
approve based on it's policies.
B. ARIN region
There is, indeed, policy proposal 2014-14 (removal of DN
for any transfers smaller than /16 per year). but I have
not seen any discussion on it. If this policy proposal is
approved (and that is a big if) I think that 8.4 in the
ARIN NRPM could be interpreted as: /16 or lower per year
can be done without DN. However, I hope that an ARIN
representative may clarify.
C. APNIC region
APNIC had no DN policy when it reached the last /8 but it
has been added back just because ARIN required it.
Considering the latest developments, I would actually like
to work on proposing a policy change in APNIC before
APNIC38.
The policy proposal would remove DN for transfers between
APNIC members. Basically, no DN for Intra-RIR transfers
and DN verified by the receiving RIR if they have it in
policy.
It would also permit transfers from ARIN or RIPE NCC to
APNIC (keeping the DN in policy only if the sending RIR
still has such a policy).
What would the community think of such idea/policy
proposal?
Kind regards,
Elvis
[1]
https://ripe68.ripe.net/presentations/292-RIPE-2014_Inter-RIR_Transfers.pdf
On 19/05/14 03:01, Dean
Pemberton wrote:
Thanks for that Adam.
So there we go...
We decided that we didn't need DN for transfers (prop-50). Then we
decided that we needed it again (prop-96) so that ARIN would play with
us.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Adam Gosling <adam@apnic.net> wrote:
Skeeve, Dean
The removal of DN in APNIC transfers was originally endorsed under
prop-50, see below. For a very short time after IPv4 exhaustion APNIC
actually operated under this policy before prop-096: Maintaining
demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase
added it back in.
--
prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0009/12420/prop-050-v005.txt
Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
- Prior to the exhaustion of APNIC's IPv4 space (i.e. prior to the
use of the "final /8" allocation measures) recipients of
transfers will be required to justify their need for address
space. After this time there is no requirement for any form of
evaluation of requirements for eligibility.
--
Also of note is that the ARIN AC recently accepted "ARIN-prop-204 Removing
Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft Policy.
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-May/028486.html>. As Bill
rightly notes, this is a very early stage in the ARIN PDP.
The status page for the proposal is
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_14.html
This proposal would change the DN for ARIN recipients only. ARIN’s policy
on Inter-RIR transfers may be found here
<https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight4> It states that
"Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the
transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.”
Currently the conditions on the recipient of a transfer are: "The
conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be defined by
the policies of the receiving RIR.”
So my understanding is that while APNIC is (of course) free to change it’s
transfers DN at any time, the ARIN Secretariat must be satisfied APNIC has
a “compatible, needs-based” policy, or it would not be able to authorise
the transfer.
Regards,
Adam
--
Adam Gosling
Internet Policy Development Consultant email: adam@apnic.net
APNIC
sip: adam@voip.apnic.nethttp://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7
3858 3100
________________________________________________________________________
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
On 19/05/2014 10:05 am, "Dean Pemberton" <dean@deanpemberton.com> wrote:
The details of APNIC transfer policy prop-95 removed the requirement
for the recipient or transfers to show DN.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-095
------ From the Policy ------
5.2.3 Conditions on the recipient of the transfer
The conditions of the transfer defined by RIR where the
recipient organization holds an account, will apply to the
recipient of the transfer:
- For transfers from an account holder of the counterpart
RIR(*) to APNIC account holder, the conditions defined
in APNIC transfer policy at the time of the transfer
will apply
- For transfers from APNIC account holder an account
holder of to the counterpart RIR(*), the conditions
defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the
time of the transfer will apply
---------
prop-96 quickly places it back.
https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-096
------ From the Policy ------
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.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com> wrote:
Hey Dean,
Can you please remind me which policy number that was... clearly I
missed
something.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Dean Pemberton <dean@deanpemberton.com>
wrote:
We still have DN for one reason and one reason only.
ARIN requires it as part of their transfer policy.
We know this because the community already removed the requirement for
DN
for IPv4 addresses post exhaustion once, and then quickly had to put
it back
in because we stood to miss out on ARIN transfers.
So to my mind the community has already spoken and this is what it has
said:
"We don't want/care about DN for post exhaustion IPv4 addresses. We've
already voted to remove it once. We *DO* care about transfers from
ARIN, so
we put DN back. Thats the only reason we have DN."
So here you go community... am I wrong with that statement?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com>
wrote:
Dean,
I am simply asking for opinions so that when/if something happens in
the
other regions that the APNIC region has already discussed it, or at
least
had opening discussions.
Do you think that we should avoid any discussion on the matter before
something happens and be reactionary? or seek to open a discussion
and get
the feeling from the community?
Lately there has been a lot of comments on involving the community
more... which is what I am trying to facilitate by bringing up the
topic.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker
v4Now - an eintellego Networks Business
skeeve@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/v4now ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Dean Pemberton
<dean@deanpemberton.com>
wrote:
Too true Bill,
For me the trigger points for any further conversation on DN are:
ARIN changes or relaxes its policy on requiring DN for transfers.
*OR*
APNIC members decide they no longer need transfers from ARIN.
I'm happy to talk about one of those things (the second), the first
is
none of my business.
Dean
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On May 18, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@v4now.com>
wrote:
ARIN, RIPE and APNIC all have demonstrated need at present.
RIPE and ARIN are having discussions about removing or lowering
the
bar.
Well, RIPE is. I wouldn’t say that’s true of ARIN. I mean, there
are
always people talking about stuff, but there’s a difference
between people
talking and a policy proposal that has any support or chance of
becoming
future policy.
-Bill
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
--
Regards,
Dean
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
--
Regards,
Dean
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
--
Regards,
Dean
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk