Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 transfer proposals {Security = Unclassified}
Hi Owen,
This time, I'll present your suggestion (Randy advised us some
condition, I think), ARIN's draft policy and our condition and ask
community for comments.
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) <fujisaki at syce dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 transfer proposals {Security = Unclassified}
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:25:39 +0900 (JST)
| 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
| |