Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers (was:thoughts on prop-068)

  • To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers (was:thoughts on prop-068)
  • From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
  • Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:42:25 +0900
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <49995358.60508 at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <> <> <>
  • User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.7 Emacs/22.3 (i386-apple-darwin9.6.0) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
      thank you for the message and for the work of the jpnic community.
      <sig chair hat = off>
      > As a related point, we had a bit of discussions here in JP over
      > whether to allow an Inter-RIR/NIR transfer and opinions were generally
      > favourable towards allowing inter-RIR/NIR transfers.
      > 1. Size of minimum transfer
      >     How would the minimum size of transfer apply for inter-RIR
      >     transfers?
      >     Read the proposals that says the source and the recipient follow
      >     policies of respective regions - so would the policy of the region
      >     with shorter prefix apply?
      >      e.g. APNIC accountholders (min:/22 or /24) --> RIPE (min:/21)
      >           the minimum size of transfer = /21
      good question.  as usual, the devil is in the details (excuse the idiom,
      but i suspect it is obvious).
      well, the reason we put that clause in prop-067 was to answer the
      concerns we heard about routing table growth.  and, what you suggest
      seems to be a conservative position along that line.  i do not have a
      strong opinion on this, we were just trying to meet the concerns we
      heard from the community.  so i will be interested to hear what others
      have to say.
      personally, i believe that, over the next decade or so, the size of a
      minimum allocation will get smaller and smaller in order to spread the
      increasingly scarce ipv4 space over multi-homed sites using nats (in
      front of ipv6 or ipv4 lans).  hence my support of prop-062 and the use
      of the phrase "the current minimum APNIC allocation size" in prop-062
      and prop-067.
      > 2. Allowing NIR-APNIC transfers
      >    Could we suppose transfers between APNIC-NIR(at least JPNIC) account
      >    holders can be accomodated even if there is no consensus on
      >    inter-RIR transfers? (i.e. prop-068)
      >    We strongly hope it can since NIR account holders are no different
      >    from others in the APNIC region.
      personally, this sounds reasonable to me.  and i think that was what pfs
      and i were hearing from the community when we drafted prop-067.  but i
      hope we will hear more from the community over the next few weeks.
      <sig chair hat = on>
      again, thanks for your message.  i hope other members will also comment
      on the transfer proposals.
      i think it would be good to think of the transfer space not as competing
      proposals, but as a collection of design points that need discussion and
      a policy would be forged from the collection of decisions, e.g.
        o minimum size (067-4.1)
        o justify recipient use (067-4.2)
        o inter-registry (067-4.3)
        o seller must be full member (067-4.4 & 4.5)
        o seller may not get more space (067-4.6)
        o between nir members and others (your jpnic comment)
      personally, i do not have strong opinions on most of these.  i just want
      to see this moved along in a simple fashion.  after three "go back and
      work on it some more" for prop-050, something had to shake up the game.
      okutani-san, as i am a proposer in this space, and hence have a conflict
      of interest, would you be willing to lead this discussion in manila?