Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers

  • To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:51:37 +0900
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <m2eixy4kpa.wl%randy at psg dot com>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <> <> <> <>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)
      Randy Bush wrote:
      > hi okutani-san,
      > 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.
      > great!
      I did notice a few people claiming we should go one step at a time,
      first start with APNIC region then extend to other RIRs.
      There is a routing operators who expressed concerns about the impact on
      routing to allow cross-RIR transfers at this stage, like as the question
      about the size i mentioned earlier, impact on region-based filtering, etc.
      Anyways, most people supported the concept of inter-RIR, either we do it
      in one go/take two steps.
      >> 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).
      yes. and hopefully it's not a big one :-)
      > 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.
      Either way, people just want to understand what to expect.
      > 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.
      Right. Point taken.
      >> 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?
      I'd be happy to personally but I want to make sure comments from JP
      operators can be shared in Manila by someone else, etc.
      Let me think about it and get back to you soon.