Re: [sig-policy] [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
On Feb 11, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
Raul Echeberria wrote:
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.
There are two issues that I can readily see here - the first is the
issue of defining the mechanics of a cross-rir transfer. and the
is the assessment of the value of the intended outcomes and the
other unintended outcomes.
Concerning mechanics, in looking at the APNIC and ARIN proposals they
both take the approach of "qualification" of the two parties to a
transfer. One approach would be to 'recognise' the qualification from
another region - i.e. taking an ARIN perspective a "transferor" (is
really an english word? ;-)) meets the criteria listed in section
To extend this to allow cross-RIR transfers it would be a case of
adding "or meets the criteria as listed (insert reference to the
transfer policy of another RIR) for members of (RIR). Similarly the
conditions of the transferee could be augmented by reference to the
relevant qualifications in the policies of other RIRs. So in terms of
extending the mechanics of the policy proposals to encompass cross-RIR
transfers then I'd suggest that there are ways to achieve this though
the use of mutual recognition of each RIR's qualification processes.
(I should note a slight inaccuracy here from my previous posting - I
thought that the presentation at the October 2007 RIPE meeting :
had been submitted into the RIPE policy process as a proposal, but it
looks like this has not happened as yet as there is no proposal listed
The second issue is perhaps the one that deserves further
There is a strong argument in favour of looking at this issues of
transfers from a global rather than regional perspective. The regional
distribution of IPv4 addresses today, the regional levels of demand
IPv4 addresses, and the projections of demand within each region do
appear to be well-aligned, and an imposition of a regional
of transfers may well lead to less than desireable outcomes.
One question I have is whether a global transfer model would run the
risk of unintended outcomes. Would a global transfer domain create
inequities and imbalances in the residual IPv4 internet that may
some other form of intervention or mediation to redress? What are the
risks of such outcomes, and it is possible to propose some policy
mechanisms that may mitigate such risks?
In order to avoid potential accusations (if not reality) of abuse of
such a inter-RIR transfer system, I suspect that the scope of inter-
RIR coordination would have to go far beyond reciprocal accreditation
of recipient qualification policies, extending at least to
verification policies, and possibly to direct (i.e., cross-regional)
verification of "need" itself. Granted, this begs the question of how
the "needs verification" or qualifying process will work even in an
intra-regional context when number resources are much scarcer and
perceived to be much more valuable -- but I think that question is
looming/unavoidable in any case.
If the RIR are empowered and obliged to sign off on *both* inbound
and outbound transfers, that should immunize them from both corrosive
internal pressures and corrosive external criticisms, etc., making
the overall system more durable.
(personal wild notion only)
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net