Hi Owen, May I point out that despite reciprocity with APNIC, almost no addresses have flowed from APNIC to ARIN? I think less than a /17 in aggregate since the first interregional transfer in 2012.
You are correct in your expectation that actual transfers aren't symmetrical, because they respond to market forces. So we are saying to the address-poor regions of the globe that we refuse to send our addresses to them because we are standing on principal, even if that principal has little real effect. The communities in these regions can regard the history of allocations and reasonably come to the conclusion that they have been shortchanged. Thus they might feel less inclined to stand on that principal of reciprocal trade, which I agree is the best policy. I talked to some LACNIC members who expressed an unusual fear to me, a fear based on the difference in economic realities in the Southern versus the Northern Hemisphere in the Americas. The fear was that poorer LACNIC members would decide to re-engineer their networks to take maximum advantage of CGNAT for the purposes of selling their addresses, and the fear is that these sales will be to the richer regions of the world, resulting in outflow and degraded local Internet. Thus a potential danger is present in some minds which a unidirectional policy would obviate. This reminds me of when ARIN also required reciprocity in needs-testing. In my opinion, the ARIN community used its historical imbalance of address allocations to cudgel the APNIC community into changing their policies to meet ARIN's demands, for a likewise minimal effect, in order to stand on the principal of needs-testing. At least needs-testing had historical antecedent in the free-pool allocation policies. However there never was any history of reciprocity in inter-regional transfer policy, that seems to be a new principal and not one worth engendering conflict with LACNIC and AFRINIC. As far as this policy opening the door or setting a dangerous precedent, may I point out that this one-way policy has been operational for years regarding certain Asian NIRs, and the precedent has not proved dangerous. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 8:29 PM To: Mike Burns <[email protected]> Cc: Job Snijders <[email protected]>; Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>; ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility The reciprocity requirement merely requires that the policies ALLOW transfers in both directions. I do not believe that allowing transfers to an RIR which will not allow transfers out is reasonable or prudent and this belief has nothing to do with maintenance or protection of a free pool. If we will allow transfers between RIRs, then the policies by which they are allowed should be fair, balanced, and symmetrical. This does not mean that I expect the ratio of actual transfers to be balanced or symmetrical, merely that the policies under which they are conducted should be. Owen > On Jan 20, 2017, at 09:48 , Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > I forget where the original numbers came from, but with a total of > 130, obviously many /8s are missing. > Probably this count is not considering legacy space, most of which is > North American. > Including those legacy addresses, the supply for much of the transfer > market, the ratios are much more in ARIN's favor. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Job > Snijders > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 7:23 AM > To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy > compatibility > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:40:55PM -0800, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> Why is average /8s per continent the right metric there? Wouldn't >> IPv4 addresses per capita be more like what we're looking for? I >> haven't run the numbers, but I suspect the ARIN region is higher than >> all four of the other RIRs in terms of IPv4 addresses per capita. If >> so, then simply removing "reciprocal," would have the same effect (of >> allowing transfers to regions with more need for IPv4 addresses than >> the ARIN region) and be much simpler. > > Region | /8 count | population (mm) | ipv4 per capita (+/- avg) > --------+-----------+-----------------+------------------------- > ARIN | 36 | 579 | 1.043 (+355%) > AFRINIC | 5 | 1216 | 0.068 (-430%) > LACNIC | 9 | 442 | 0.357 (+120%) > RIPE | 35 | 738 | 0.794 (+270%) > APNIC | 45 | 4476 | 0.168 ( -57%) > --------+-----------+-----------------+---------------- > total | 130 | 7451 | 0.293 > > numbers taken from > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population > > Kind regards, > > Job > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
