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 Additionally, the Inter-RIR policy proposal 2012-02 will be withdrawn and a new policy proposal will be made shortly, as announced during RIPE68.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. ÂIt 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 at apnic dot 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. 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 loweringthebar.Well, RIPE is. I wouldnât say thatâs true of ARIN. I mean, therearealways people talking about stuff, but thereâs a differencebetween peopletalking and a policy proposal that has any support or chance ofbecomingfuture 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
|