j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
Sorry duplicate copy, but let me share it as I believe it is helpful for understanding current situation about demonstration needs in Inter-RIR transfer.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi APNIC Policy SIG Co-chair
On 14/06/06 15:35, "Masato Yamanishi" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Elvis and all,
Sorry for late reply, but I had a chance to talk with some of ARIN AC members and ARIN staff, so let me share their feedbacks.
- It is ARIN staffs' responsibility to show the implications of current ARIN
policy and they think current proposed idea on apnic-talk, which removes DN only from Intra-RIR transfer, is not compatible with ARIN transfer policy as it is, since ARIN requires DN for both of Inter and Intra RIR transfer case.
- Even if ARIN staff would think it is compatible, ARIN community may raise a
issue that it can be used to milk ARIN's remaining pool. So, adding more restrictions for Intra-RIR transfer of address spaces which were transferred from other RIRs (e.g. DN requirement, 12months restriction) may be helpful to relax their concern.
- ARIN's concern for milking is applicable only before the exhaustion of
their remaining pool and it is expected to happen at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. So, we may see different discussion after that.
I hope it helps your understanding and discussion.
Rgs, Masato Yamanishi
On 14/06/04 7:39, "Elvis Velea" email@example.com wrote:
I was really hoping that someone from ARIN will respond to either my e-mail or yours.
Anyway, while we are waiting for them to respond, I would like to notify the community on the latest developments in the RIPE region.
As mentioned in my previous message, 2012-02 has been withdrawn and Sandra Brown has sent a new policy proposal to the RIPE community, 2014-05. This policy proposal enables Inter-RIR transfers between the RIPE region and the other regions with active Inter-RIR transfer policies (ARIN and APNIC for now).
I already talked to Sandra during the previous RIPE Meeting and discussed the possible ways forward for what is now known as 2014-05. While Sandra is supposed to be our competition :-) I would nevertheless like to acknowledge the great work she has done for 2014-05 and would like to invite her to (maybe) send the same or a very similar policy proposal in the APNIC region as well. If she does not have time for it, I would like to come up with a similar proposal in the APNIC region to be discussed before and during the meeting in Brisbane. Basically, her proposal is asking the RIPE NCC to create an operational procedure and work with the other RIRs to allow Inter-RIR transfers. (if incoming transfers to the RIPE region from ARIN/APNIC will require need based justification, the RIPE NCC will request it's member/LIR to provide the justification).
As far as I have seen and heard from various people in this community, DN for post-exhaustion has already been removed once and only added because ARIN had it in their policy. If we work on a new policy proposal, maybe we can remove DN for everything else but ARIN incoming IPs (for as long as ARIN will keep DN in their policy) and still be compatible with RIPE and ARIN policies regarding Inter-RIR transfers.
Kind regards, Elvis
On 28/05/14 09:01, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
Elvis and All,
Regarding inter-RIR transfer with ARIN, Sec 8.4 of ARIN NRPM says,
8.4. Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the
transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.
So, it means APNIC policy should be accepted as "reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies" by ARIN community
to keep Inter-RIR transfer between ARIN and APNIC.
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).
Can somebody participating ARIN discussion actively clarify whether this idea is still reciprocal with ARIN NRPM
which requires demonstrated needs for both of Intra-RIR transfer and Inter-RIR transfer?
APNIC Policy SIG Co-Chair
On 14/05/27 10:54, "Elvis Velea" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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. 
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
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.
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.
-- Adam Gosling Internet Policy Development Consultant email: email@example.com APNIC sip: firstname.lastname@example.org://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 ________________________________________________________________________
- Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
> > 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 email@example.com > mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org 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 > email@example.com ; www.v4now.com http://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 > http://www.theispguy.com > > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Dean Pemberton firstname.lastname@example.org > mailto:email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org > mailto:email@example.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 > firstname.lastname@example.org ; www.v4now.com http://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 > http://www.theispguy.com > > > IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Dean Pemberton > email@example.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > 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 email@example.com > mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > > On May 18, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Skeeve Stevens email@example.com > mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > > > 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 > email@example.com://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni > c-talk > > > -- > Regards, > > Dean > _______________________________________________ > apnic-talk mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni > c-talk > > > > -- > Regards, > > Dean > > _______________________________________________ > apnic-talk mailing list > email@example.com://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni > c-talk > > > > -- > Regards, > > Dean > _______________________________________________ > apnic-talk mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apni > c-talk >
_______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list email@example.com http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk