Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at
Wed Nov 17 00:52:34 UTC 2010

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 17:22, Sam Dickinson <sam at> wrote:
> Hi Owen
> On Nov 13, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> <snip>
>>>  "Disallow transfers of addresses sourced from the Reclamation Pool
>>>   in the absence of an IPv4 Global Transfer Policy to neutralize
>>>   transfer process inequities across RIR regions."
>>> What do you mean by "neutralize transfer process inequities across RIR
>>> regions"?
>> My understanding is this is meant to address the following concern:
>> APNIC passed a transfer policy which does not require justified need on
>> the part of the
>> recipient. Absent this provision, such a global policy would allow an
>> entity within APNIC
>> that has justified need to obtain space, transfer it to a broker, then,
>> obtain more space,
>> lather, rinse, repeat until such time as all possible space had been
>> transferred to a broker
>> in the APNIC region to the detriment of all other regions.
> This reading of the APNIC transfer policy is not correct. Justification of
> need is required for transfers right up until the final /8 policy. At that
> point, any organization must justify its existing holdings before it is
> eligible to receive its single /22 from that final space. When combined with
> APNIC's final /8 policy, there is no room for the transfer, rinse, repeat
> cycle suggested above. In fact, to date, nobody has used the transfer
> policy.
> To clarify, there are 2 stages of the transfer policy.
> Transfers stage 1:
>  - Active:
>      Now until APNIC begins allocations from the final /8
>  - Source of transfer:
>      - Ineligible to receive any further addresses from APNIC for 12
>        months OR until the final /8 phase is reached.
>      - On requesting resources from APNIC, would need to justify need
>        for those addresses.
>  - Recipient of transfer:
>      - Required to justify need for addresses according to the same
>        criteria as account holder requesting addresses directly from
>        APNIC.
>      - Must fully justify use of the transferred addresses if the
>        organization requests further space from APNIC.
> Transfers stage 2:
>  - Active:
>     When APNIC's final /8 allocation policy is activated
>  - Source of transfer:
>     - Can request resources immediately from APNIC, but is limited
>       by final /8 policy to receiving a single /22 from the final /8,
>       and must justify need for the addresses.
>  - Recipient of transfer:
>     - No need to justify resources at time of transfer.
>     - If requesting resources from APNIC's final /8:
>       - organization is eligible to receive only a single /22, and
>       - must justify need for the addresses, including demonstrating
>         use of any previously transferred resources the recipient
>         holds.
> I have included the most important details above. Full details are available
> in section 3 of the policy document, "APNIC transfer, merger, acquisition,
> and takeover policy" at:
> It should also be read in conjunction with the final /8 policy in section
> 9.10 of the "Policies for IPv4 address space management in the Asia Pacific
> region".

Thanks for the great information Sam.

I understand that the last /8 in APNIC is limited to a single /22 dip
for each org. What I am unsure of is what would happen to space
returned to IANA after the last /8s are distributed and subsequently
allocated to APNIC.  My assumption is that APNIC would not treat that
"new" space the same as the last /8 (single /22) but would rather
treat it as "regular" IPv4 space, using whatever policies are in place
just before run-out. Can you clarify that for me (on or off list,
since it may not be specifically relevant to the AfriNIC RPD)?

More importantly however, I can say as one of the authors of this
policy that I am not specifically/only concerned with the current
APNIC transfer policy (or any other current policies) but rather with
the fact that any RIR could implement a potentially dangerous transfer
policy at any time. The community of any of the five RIRs could at any
point in the future decide to put policy in place which allows what
Owen described, and that is what we want to avoid. As long as that
risk remains, it is very unlikely that we will see any returns to


>> Owen
> Regards
> Sam Dickinson
> Senior Policy Specialist, APNIC
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at


More information about the RPD mailing list