Geoff. One observation.Accepting transfers only within the region is a way to keep the IP addresses within the regions in which they were originally allocated.
I don't know if it is good or not, but a fact.If the transfer of legacy space is also admited, it has a great impact in other regions, since most of the unused space belonging to the legacy blocks, will feed regional markets in the developed countries. This is the promotion of regional markets instead of global markets.
My opinion is that the regional approach to a global poblem that is the IPv4 deployment is not the right approach.
Raúl At 06:51 p.m. 11/02/2008, Geoff Huston wrote:
Raul Echeberria wrote: > Could the author of the proposal explain what is > the justification for requiring that the > transferee should also belong to ARIN's region? > It is only a question and it doesn't imply any > specific opinion about the topic. > > Raúl >Raul has not asked this more generally, but as the proposer of a similar address transfer policy in APNIC that also has a similar restriction (APNIC members only) I should add a note about why this restriction is present in the APNIC transfer policy proposal.In the APNIC case its about the regional address policy group being able to define policy for themselves. In this case the policy proposal has not been submitted as a coordinated policy across the RIRs nor as a proposed global polic. It was submitted to the APNIC policy development process as a proposed APNIC policy that would apply to APNIC members.That said, I now notice that there are similar proposals in both the ARIN and RIPE regions, so it may be possible during the course of the consideration of these proposals to assess to what extent such transfer mechanisms could be extended to encompass transfers across RIRs, as Scott Leibrand has already indicated in his response to Raul.Geoff -- No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 11/02/2008 08:16 a.m.