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: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:16:08 +1100
- Cc: Policy SIG <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: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <49954E5C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 16/02/2009, at 10:51 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
Hi all,As a related point, we had a bit of discussions here in JP over whetherto allow an Inter-RIR/NIR transfer and opinions were generally favourable towards allowing inter-RIR/NIR transfers. i.e. We support this element of the proposal(s). I have two clarifications about inter-registry 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
Hi Izumi, thanks for your report on the discussions in JP on these topics.Yes, you are correct in that interpretation of my intent as the author of this policy proposal. In this example case the prefix size needs to meet the apnic minimum size criteria AND the RIPE minimum size criteria so that a transfer in either direction that spans RIPE and APNIC would need to be a minimum size of a /21 if this is the RIPE policy.
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.
I suppose that in terms of strict formalism the answer would be "no, that would be an incorrect supposition" from the strictly limited perspective of this policy proposal. The proposal does not have optional components that can be adjudged by the community independently as to general consensus in acceptance. But of course the policy process is one where proposals are put before the community in an attempt to find what would gain such general acceptance, and if proposal 68 fails and there is an identified need to address the specific issues relating to transfers that encompasses members of NIRs and members of APNIC then further policy proposals would doubtless appear that would address that specific issue independently of the inter-RIR topic.
Of course in all this flurry of hypothetical future policy proposals there is the time element lurking behind all this, and I'm not sure that the general economic downturn has really altered the basic dynamics of IPv4 address consumption all that much in terms of gaining extra years to debate the issue (check out http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/predict.png to see the change in predicted exhaustion dates over time), so at some point the inevitable will occur and the IPv4 address allocation system used today will come to a natural halt. We probably need to find some acceptable answers to these issues this year as to what we do afterwards. (Unless of course we crave the added excitement of living right on the edge! :-))
Kind regards, Geoff