I brokered the first two Inter-regional transfers, both involving a sale of ARIN addresses to APNIC buyers. I shepherded the transaction through both RIRs in my role as a registered broker in both RIRs, and my impression was that the amount of extra work was minimal. There was some tweaking of a transfer template required, and after the initial transfer, the APNIC Whois record incorrectly referred to the addresses as having been part of the ERX process. That was quickly addressed, and the entire transfer process took about a week. Of course this extra effort on the part of ARIN and APNIC enriched me in my role as a broker, and if that's all it did, then McTim would have an accurate point. However my client, who had already received his maximum /22 from APNIC, was able to continue to grow, so he benefited. And the increased supply of addresses available in Asia as a result of the ability to transfer from ARIN has resulted in lower prices in the ARIN/APNIC market than in the RIPE market, where prices are higher. The inclusion of RIPE into the global market will lower prices due to increased supply, and this benefit will inure to all RIPE buyers. And of course many in Asia see it as a fairness thing, with ARIN having gotten the lion's share of addresses it is viewed as only fair that they have access to that ARIN abundance. http://www.circleid.com/posts/ipv6_transitional_uncertainties/ In this article, Geoff Huston asks the question: What's the level of risk that the differing environments of transition lead to significantly different outcomes in each region as the process of transition takes of a different momentum in different regions? And if this eventuates will we still have a single coherent Internet as a common asset, or will we find that market forces interact in unpredictable ways that create different outcomes in each region? One way to minimize the risk of uneven runout is to facilitate a global transfer market. I support the proposal. Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading.com -----Original Message----- From: McTim Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:42 AM To: Gert Doering Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and ImpactAnalysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) Hi Gert, Opposed. I see this as potentially creating a good deal of admin overhead for the RIRs, which will impact all LIRs, while the upside will only be for those few who want to further commoditise Internet numbering resources. the relevant bits of the impact analysis are quoted below: "C. Impact of Policy on RIPE NCC Operations/Services Registration Services: It is very relevant to note that the implementation of this policy proposal will require a significant effort of co-ordination between the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs. It is unclear at the moment how much time and resources will be needed to fully implement the proposal. . . D. Legal Impact of Policy If this policy proposal will be accepted, the RIPE NCC will need to create appropriate legal procedures and template agreements in order for all parties to understand and agree on the preconditions and the consequences of the transfer in accordance with the provisions of this policy." -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Dear AP WG members,
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 02:46:03PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-02, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. [..] You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02
and the draft document at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 18 March 2013.
Let me remind you again that we need your explicit voice of support if you want to see this proposal implemented. (If you do *not* want that, an explicit voice of opposition would be helpful, too).
"No response" is making our lives as WG chairs somewhat difficult - it will lead to "extention of the review period", and then after some more months to "asking the proposer to drop the proposal due to lack of support"...
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279