Orbit

Hi Owen,

I'm one of proposers of prop-096, "Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase". Thank you for your support, and I'm so sorry for replying so late.

As you suggested, we basically think prop-096 is in set with prop-095, "Inter-RIR IPv4 address transfer proposal". Please give us comments if anyone think these proposals should be independent.

Yours Sincerely, -- Tomohiro Fujisaki

From: Owen DeLong owen@delong.com Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-096: Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy after the final /8 phase Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 03:13:47 -0800

| I strongly support this proposal. It rectifies an imbalance in policy that will | prevent other RIRs from accepting global transfers to APNIC. | | Owen | | | On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Terence Zhang YH wrote: | | > 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@lists.apnic.net | > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy | | * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * | _______________________________________________ | sig-policy mailing list | sig-policy@lists.apnic.net | http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy |

I'm with Tony on this one. One last /22 (or /24) given the size number of APNIC members covers a very long period of time as has been highlighted in other policy debates.

Best Regards, Randy Whitney

On 1/25/2011 6:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:

I strongly oppose this proposal.

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@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.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.

1. 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.

1. 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

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

•          sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
  

sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy