Re: [apnic-talk] Demonstrated Need Transfers - Seeking Opinions
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. ARINâs 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.â
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.â
So my understanding is that while APNIC is (of course) free to change itâs
transfers DN at any time, the ARIN Secretariat must be satisfied APNIC has
a âcompatible, needs-basedâ policy, or it would not be able to authorise
the transfer.
Regards,
Adam
--
Adam Gosling
Internet Policy Development Consultant email: adam at apnic dot net
APNIC
sip: adam at voip dot apnic dot net
http://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 at deanpemberton dot 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 at v4now dot 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 at v4now dot 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 at deanpemberton dot 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 at v4now dot 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 at v4now dot 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 at deanpemberton dot 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 at pch dot net> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On May 18, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at v4now dot 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 wouldnât say thatâs true of ARIN. I mean, there
>>>>>are
>>>>> > always people talking about stuff, but thereâs 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 at lists dot apnic dot net
>>>>> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dean
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>>>> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
>>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dean
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Dean
>_______________________________________________
>apnic-talk mailing list
>apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk