Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 transfer proposals {Security = Unclassified}
Hi Owen,
Thank you so much for your prompt reply! Now, I understood your
points. We, proposers will discuss your suggestion, and reply your
mail. I personally think these requirements might be coordinated
between two RIRs, and it might be difficult to define clearly.
Anyway, I hope our proposal will be a starting point to discuss
inter-RIR transfer policy in our region.
Yours Sincerely
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 transfer proposals {Security = Unclassified}
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:36:11 -0800
|
| On Feb 20, 2011, at 12:20 AM, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) wrote:
|
| >
| > Hi Owen,
| >
| > From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
| > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 transfer proposals {Security = Unclassified}
| > Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 12:15:09 -0800
| >
| > | I would support prop-095 if it were modified that the
| > | transferor policies of the source registry and the transferee
| > | policies of the recipient registry were the ones applied.
| >
| > Can I confirm your suggestion?
| >
| > Currently, we define:
| >
| > a) source -> APNIC account holder
| >
| > APNIC account holder have to fulfill the source RIR's requirement
| >
| > b) APNIC account holder -> recipient
| >
| > Recipient fulfill the APNIC's requirement
| >
| > You mean,
| >
| > a) source -> APNIC account holder
| >
| > 1. APNIC account holder have to fulfill the source RIR's requirement
| >
| > 2. source have to fulfill the APNIC's requirement
| >
| > b) APNIC account holder -> recipient
| >
| > 1. Recipient fulfil the APNIC's requirement
| >
| > 2. APNIC account holder have to fulfill the recipient RIR's requirement
| >
| > Could you please teach me my understanding is correct?
| >
| Close...
|
| I mean:
|
| a) Source -> APNIC Account holder
| APNIC Account holder must meet APNIC criteria for receiving space.
| Source must meet Source RIR criteria for transferring space to another party.
|
| b) APNIC Account holder -> Recipient
| APNIC Account holder must meet APNIC criteria for transferring space to another party.
| Recipient must meet Recipient RIR criteria for receiving space in a transfer.
|
|
| > | I tentatively support prop-095 as it is written, but, note that it
| > | may be incompatible with the proposed globally coordinated
| > | policy and/or policies under consideration in other regions.
| >
| > As you say, ARIN's current ARIN's global coordinated policy proposal
| > looks more flexible than ours.
| >
| When I refer to ARIN's current policy, I mean ARIN NRPM 8.3 which
| is the result of draft policy 2009-1.
|
| As to the draft policy 2011-1, I think my meaning above is identical.
|
| I agree that prop-096 is necessary. However, as currently stated, it
| might not allow transfer exchanges with ARIN due to conflicting with
| NRPM 8.3 (existing) and possibly 2011-1 (which may become policy).
|
| I hope that clarifies.
|
| Owen
|
| > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html
| >
| > However, in both proposal, I think we need prop-096.
| >
| >> .ARIN's current policy
| >> .
| >> .Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1
| >> .Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
| >> .
| >> .Version/date: 23 December 2011
| >> .
| >> .Policy statement:
| >> .
| >> .Any RIR's resource registrant may transfer IPv4 addresses to the
| >> .resource registrant of another RIV as long as the two RIRs agree and
| >> .maintain compatible, needs-based transfer policies thavt exercise
| >> .Internet stewardship consistent with the values expressed in RFC2050.
| >> .
| >> .Rationale: Since individual RIRs now allow transfers, it makes sense to
| >> .be able to transfer between regions as well.
| >> .
| >> .Timetable for implementation: upon ratification by the ARIN Board of
| >> Trustees
| >
| > Yours Sincerely,
| > --
| > Tomohiro Fujisaki
|