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

Wed Apr 15 20:15:00 BRT 2015

Español abajo / Spanish below

Nicolas,

I think your idea of splitting apart the inbound and outbound parts of
Inter-RIR transfer policy is a good idea.  I wonder if we actually could
accomplish that more easily, without the delay of getting global
unanimity.  Specifically, I believe we should propose, in each RIR that
requires reciprocal transfer policy, to remove the "reciprocal"
requirement.  I believe that such a change would gain consensus more
quickly and easily than any global policy proposal.

If we propose in the ARIN region to remove the "reciprocal" requirement,
and it gains consensus, do you all think that the LACNIC community would be
willing to adopt an Inter-RIR transfer policy that allows the transfer of
addresses INTO the LACNIC region, without having to also allow the transfer
of addresses OUT of the LACNIC region?

Spanish translation / Traducción al español:

Nicolas,

Creo que su idea de la división aparte las partes entrantes y salientes de
la política de transferencia entre RIR es una buena idea. Me pregunto si en
realidad podríamos lograr que más fácilmente, sin la demora de conseguir la
unanimidad mundial. En concreto, creo que hay que proponer, en cada RIR que
requiere la política de transferencia recíproca, para eliminar el requisito
de "reciprocidad". Yo creo que ese cambio ganaría consenso más rápida y
fácilmente que cualquier propuesta de política global.

Si nos proponemos en la región ARIN para eliminar el requisito de
"reciprocidad", y gana consenso, piensan ustedes que la comunidad LACNIC
estaría dispuesto a adoptar una política de transferencia entre RIR que
permite la transferencia de direcciones a la región de LACNIC, sin tener
que también permitirá la transferencia de direcciones fuera de la región de
LACNIC?

-Scott

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Nicolas Antoniello <nantoniello at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>