On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
* steve.r.wright@bt.com
Hi all, I support the goals of 2014-15, the suggestion below seems to be a practical solution, if acceptable to all parties.
Agreed.
I would have ideally preferred to see language that was sufficiently generic to accommodate for any condition (i.e., not just limited to ARIN's "needs-based" requirement) imposed by another RIR region on the RIPE region entities engaging in inter-region transfers with that RIR region. However, I see that accomplishing this might be more trouble than it's worth, especially when taking into account that ARIN doesn't consider the attempt currently in 2014-05 adequate.
So it would seem that a "KISS" approach would be better, explicitly putting in a "needs-based" requirement as mandated by ARIN. John, thank you for suggesting text, it's very helpful to have a starting point that we know that ARIN will consider compatible.
I wanted to make that this community understood the reason for the incompatibility, since it did not appear to be a mismatch in actual policy intent. Glad it was helpful.
I have some comments on your suggested text, though: ... 2) Hard-coding 24 months is a risk. If for example the ARIN community changes their transfer policy to have different need period, then we would find ourselves with incompatible policies again. So I think that we should instead just refer to whatever need period the other RIR has.
To be clear, ARIN policy for inter-RIR transfers does not require any specific need period - my text was solely to be an example. There must be policy text that refers to needs-based (i.e. some operational need for the address space), but any change in ARIN's policy for transfers within the ARIN region should not require a change to RIPE policy for needs-based compatibility in any circumstance.
3) I think it would be more flexible to not require the usage plan to be presented to the NCC, but that it could be presented to the other RIR instead. My reasoning is that the other RIR might already have the forms and criteria ready for performing need evaluation in a way that's (obviously) "compatible" with that RIR's own policies, while the NCC might not.
Once the RIPE Inter-RIR transfer policy is determined to be needs-based and compatible, then processing of individual requests can easily be handled by RIPE NCC without any need for sharing of requesters information with other parties. This works quite well quite Inter-RIR transfers between APNIC and the ARIN region today, whereas there are likely to be potential implementation issues with your proposed approach that would need to be carefully explored; for example, ARIN has no relationship to a requestor in the RIPE region, no non-disclosure agreement, etc.
Therefore it could potentially be easier for all involved parties if the other RIR performs the required need evaluation (if that RIR and the NCC agrees on such a transfer procedure, that is). It might also help prevent possibly complaints from the other region that the NCC doesn't perform stringent enough evaluation, and so on.
I believe that all of the RIRs must rely on each other for faithful implementation of policy, but again, this has not been a problem for other Inter-RIR transfers to/from the ARIN region. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN