Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers

  • To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers
  • From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:14:57 +1100
  • Cc: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <499CC1D6.4020903 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: <> <> <> <> <>
    • Hi Izumi,
      On 19/02/2009, at 1:20 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
      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)
      Yes, I completely agree with this model.
      The way prop-50 is worded (and pro-68) is that it explicitly allows NIR communities the choice of whether they want to join or not. So if the ISPs in Japan wish to be part of this framework then it is a case of using the JPNIC OPM to gather consensus support and adopt a similar policy for transfers in the context of JPNIC, which would then be
      honored under the terms of APNIC / NIR transfers as proposed in prop-68.
      Prop-50 explicitly applies to APNIC members and not to members of NIR communities. The reason why I drafted it in this manner was to allow such NIR communities to decide for
      themselves if this is appropriate for their circumstances or not.
      Prop-68 respects the integrity of the NIR policies in this process and proposes that
      transfers of addresses between APNIC members and NIR members can occur
      only of the transfer meets the respective criteria of APNIC and the NIR.
      In other words the proposals 50 and 68 explicitly makes it a choice or NIR communities here.
      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.
      this may be the case, and the chairs of the Policy SIG may wish to explore these alternative approaches if prop-68 fails to gain general consensus. Of course if prop-68 receives general support then this would not be necessary,
      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)