Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers

  • To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:20:06 +0900
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <79EEB4C1-425E-418D-B10A-186A969C3CF7 at apnic dot net>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <> <> <> <>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)
    • > 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  
      >> whether
      >> to 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.
      okay. nice to be confirm that. thanks.
      >> 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.
      So transfers between APNIC and NIR account holders will not be allowed
      if prop-068 gets rejected.
      I can sort of understand to make inter-RIR transfers as a seperate issue
      to be discussed but...
      A strong request from ISPs in Japan is that they want to be a part of
      transfers within the APNIC region as they are no different from direct
      APNIC LIRs/other ISPs. Please include us too! :-)
      Ofcourse, we'd like to see opinions within the region so may I suggest
      to make a seperate poll on transfers between APNIC-NIR account holders
      from inter RIR-transfers?
      (Make it a choice of NIR community if they want to join)
      My hopefull guess is that even the people who don't support inter RIR
      transfers may find it acceptable to have inter-registry (APNIC-NIR)
      transfers within the APNIC region at least.
      BTW, am I right in assuming that prop-067 doesn't make this distiction?
      (transfers between APNIC and NIR account holders are accepted if the
      proposal reaches consensus)
      > 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 
      >   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! :-))
      yes, which is exactly why ISPs/operators in Japan wish to have transfers
      between APNIC/NIR members to be allowed as well.
      (it is a tempting crave but I'll keep it as a personal sentiment)