[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva Propuesta LAC-2015-2? //New proposal LAC-2015-2? //Nova Proposta LAC-2015-2?

Wed Apr 15 19:48:28 BRT 2015

Dear all,

I personally have the same concern that Ricardo has.
What I've been thinking of the past days and want to set out for your
consideration and discussion is the following:

Taking into account that some RIRs need a reciprocal transfer policy to be
able to transfer TO, the proposal is to divide the "tensfer" policy problem
into two policies.

One (the first, yes, the first to develop) might be a global one about the
"administrative common mechanism for inter RIR resources transfers" (that
is something I believe we as all RIRs do not have yet, and I also believe
it might help). This global policy should say how the transfer process will
be handled as an inter RIR basis. It won't allow OUTPUT transferences but
will allow INPUT as it will establish the common ground for it.

The second (with pending deployment status for a while, to some RIRs like
us) is the one that would be optional and will allow OUTPUT transfers.
This second one should not be global, of course (as some of the other RIRs
already have one running) and of course this aproach should be compatible
with the fact that most actual transfer policies handle the received blocks
as if they where assigned by IANA (in means of the qualification
requirements by a company for getting a block); and I think that it might
be perfectly compatible.
policy

I know the process of getting a global policy though is not easy (been
there, done that... ;) ) but I believe it might help a lot in this case.

What do you think?

Regards,
Nicolas

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Español abajo / Spanish below
>
> Luis and Ricardo,
>
> Do I understand correctly that you're concerned about organizations
> acquiring space from the remaining LACNIC reserved /11s and then
> transferring it out of the LACNIC region (or transferring their existing
> space and getting more from the reserved /11s)?
>
> What if we modified 2.3.2.X.5 slightly to read "A block that has previously
> been transferred *or received from LACNIC* may not subsequently be
> transferred again for a period of one year"?
>
> That modification complements David's already-proposed restriction 2.3.2.X4
> that "The organization from which the transfer originated shall
> automatically be ineligible to receive IPv4 resource allocations and/or
> assignments from LACNIC for a period of one year".  With that modification,
> the transfer of address blocks recently received from LACNIC would also be
> disallowed.
>
> Ricardo, would that help address your concern about "massive out flow of IP
> to other regions"?
>
> -Scott
>
> Traducción al Español / Spanish translation:
>
> Luis y Ricardo,
>
> ¿Entiendo correctamente que ustedes están preocupado acerca de las
> organizaciones que adquieren espacio desde el restante LACNIC reservados /
> 11s y luego transferirlo fuera de la región de LACNIC (o transferencia de
> su espacio existente y conseguir más de los reservados / 11s)?
>
> ¿Y si modificamos 2.3.2.X.5 ligeramente a leer "Un bloque que ha sido
> previamente transferidos *o recibidos de LACNIC* no podrá posteriormente
> ser trasladado de nuevo por un período de un año"?
>
> Esa modificación complementa la restricción de 2.3.2.X4, ya propuesta de
> David que "La organización de la que se originó la transferencia será
> automáticamente elegible para recibir asignaciones y / o asignaciones de
> recursos IPv4 de LACNIC para un período de un año".  Con esa modificación,
> la transferencia de bloques de direcciones recientemente recibidos de
> LACNIC también sería rechazado.
>
> Ricardo, habría que ayudar a abordar su preocupación por "flujo masivo de
> IP a otras regiones"?
>
> -Scott
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Luis Balbinot <luis at luisbalbinot.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Some RIRs require a reciprocal policy on Inter-RIR transfers (e.g.
> > ARIN). I think that's Patara's concern.
> >
> > Luis
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:18 AM, David Huberman
> > <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > Hello Ricardo,
> > >
> > > The only purpose of this proposal is to allow networks which operate in
> > LACNIC but have space elsewhere to move space INTO LACNIC.   If there is
> > concern that language in the proposal that lets space leave LACNIC, let's
> > fix that? There is no intent to move space out of LACNIC or the NIRs.
> > >
> > > I proposed this specifically because my company is spending BILLIONS of
> > U.S. Dollars to build new datacenters in the region, as are other
> > competitors. LACNIC has only /22s left, and will soon be exhausted
> > completely.  As we need more and more IPv4 addresses in these
> datacenters,
> > we can only use space we have in ARIN or RIPE.  We would like to move
> that
> > space into LACNIC to properly register it in the region. And it makes
> > geolocation work much better.
> > >
> > > It will not delay IPv6. It is unrelated to IPv6.  Companies must dual
> > stack or risk not being competitive.
> > >
> > > This is only to help network operations in the LACNIC region.
> > >
> > > David R Huberman
> > > Microsoft Corporation
> > > Principal, Global IP Addressing
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> on behalf of Ricardo
> > Patara <patara at registro.br>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:57:24 AM
> > > To: politicas at lacnic.net
> > > Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva Propuesta LAC-2015-2? //New
> > proposal LAC-2015-2? //Nova Proposta LAC-2015-2?
> > >
> > > Totally against this proposal.
> > >
> > > LACNIC still have IP address to distribute.
> > >
> > > There are two main and big risks I see on this:
> > >
> > > - delay even more IPv6 deployment
> > > - massive out flow of IP to other regions (specially where there is no
> > need
> > > based analysis).
> > >
> > > So, no benefit to the region.
> > > To me it seems very focused on helping big coprs out side our region to
> > get more
> > > and more addresses with no commitment (or low) to IPv6 deployment
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > >    Ricardo Patara
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Politicas mailing list
> > > Politicas at lacnic.net
> > > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Politicas mailing list
> > > Politicas at lacnic.net
> > > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> > _______________________________________________
> > Politicas mailing list
> > Politicas at lacnic.net
> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>