[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Proposal: Ability to Transfer IPv4 addresses from a member to any company

[McTim]

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> McTim,
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> Should we as a community encourage this? I got the feeling in JoBurg,
>>> that folk were pretty much in agreement that IPv6 should be
>>> encouraged.
>>
>> IPv6 has been well publicized, and that is a good thing. The reality
>> of the situation remains that it may not take off as fast.
>
> Understood.  However this policy may retard v6 uptake further, which
> does not seem to me to be what the community.wants.
>
>
>>
>>> >> This proposal attempts to
>>> >> propose a legitimate way for such ISPs to acquire IPv4 addresses from
>>> >> existing AfriNIC members (legacy or not) who wish to give away some
>>> >> addresses (with some consideration or otherwise).
>>>
>>> Well if it involves "consideration", it's not giving, it's leasing
>>> (sales not allowed under the current IP address distribution system).
>>
>> Sales not allowed. Reality is quite different though. IP address sales
>> do happen. Let us not live in denial.
>
> I am not trying to deny that this may be the case, but it is still not
> allowed under the policy.  If you know of specific cases, i encourage
> you to report the cases to the RIR who can then take action.  What we
> need is more education on the policies.  When people understand the
> way the system is supposed to work, they abide by the rules.  This has
> been my experience anyway in teaching folk how the system operates.
>
>  Very soon, the market for IPv4
>> addresses will exist because demand will be greater than supply.
>
>
> There is a "market" in the sense that when folk need addresses, they
> go to their RIR or their upstream and apply for them based on need.
> They pay a fee for these services.  So the "market" is a system put in
> place over many years that operates based on openly made policies
> derived from community consensus.  It seems the market you would like
> to see happen would be based on who has the most cash.  Is that right?
>
>
>>
>>> >> 2.0 The Proposal
>>> >>
>>> >>  2.1 Legacy members
>
> If a legacy holder has pre-RIR space and is not a member, then the
> term "legacy members" is nonsensical.  There might be a small number
> of folk who both are current AfriNIC members and still hold legacy
> address space.  Are these what you mean by "legacy members"?
>
>
> can transfer part or all of their IPv4 addresses to
>>> >> any company. The criteria below will apply:
>>> >>     - The company to which the addresses are transferred may or may not
>>> >> enter into agreement with AfriNIC.
>>> >>     - The legacy member may or may not inform AfriNIC about the
>>> >> transaction.
>>>
>>> so no database update required?
>>
>> It is not mandatory. Legacy address holders in all regions do not have
>> any sort of relationship with the registry apart from the registry
>> keeping the IP address record in the whois db.
>
>
> In the ARIN region, people who sign a special "Legacy Resource
> Services Agreement" do have a relationship with the RIR. Not sure
> about the others.
>
> I guess my question for us here in Africa is "Are those AfriNIC
> members who also hold legacy resources bound to obey current RIR
> policies in respect to the use of legacy resources?"  I would guess
> not, but i think it is a question for legal counsel.
>
> My objection to this clause is that while legacy holders theoretically
> have current contact information in the Db re: their legacy address
> space, this proposal would mean that the db resource records would be
> less accurate in the future.
>
>
>  Any attempt to transfer
>> to another individual keeps this arrangement that way.
>>
>>> The whole point of the AfriNIC WHOIS
>>> Db is so that ppl can contact network operators when network issues
>>> arise.
>>>
>>> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2005-v4-001.htm#8  says:
>>>
>>> "If an LIR plans to exchange or transfer address space, it needs to
>>> contact AfriNIC so that the changes are properly registered."
>>
>> I have covered the part for LIRs in 2.2. Please look through there.
>>
>>> >>     - AfriNIC will accord the third party all relevant access to services
>>> >> and benefits normally available to legacy members.
>>>
>>> What is a "legacy member"??  So AfriNIC will provide service, but they
>>> won't receive any revenue for these services?  Doesn't sound very
>>> sustainable to me.
>>
>> In my understanding, this is currently what is happening not only with
>> AfriNIC but at all registries.
>
> Somewhat....see the ARIN LSRA for an example of how this is changing.
>
>
>>
>>> >>  2.2 Paying AfriNIC members can transfer part or all of their IPv4
>>> >> addresses to any company. The criteria below will apply:
>>> >>    - The company to which the addresses are transferred must enter into
>>> >> agreement with AfriNIC.
>>>
>>> Do you mean the Registration Services Agreement?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> >>    - The transfer and needs analysis cannot be based on any current
>>> >> policies.
>>>
>>> So we just throw out all of our policies regarding needs based
>>> allocation and assignment?
>>
>> Yes. AfriNIC will not have more addresses to allocate, I do not see
>> much use of that policy after that.
>
>
> Unless some more address space gets returned.
>
>>
>>> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2005-v4-001.htm#9  says:
>>>
>>> 9.5 Validity of an assignment
>>> -------------------------
>>>
>>> Assignments remain valid as long as the original criteria on which the
>>> assignment was based are still in place and the assignment is
>>> registered in the AfriNIC database. An assignment is therefore invalid
>>> if it is not registered in the database and if the purpose for which
>>> it was registered has changed or no longer holds.
>>>
>>> We just reached consensus on the policy to extend the lifetime of
>>> IPv4.  This proposal would reverse that by creating a market for v4
>>> addresses, so LIRs would have an incentive to get as much as they can
>>> as fast as they can so they can flog it off to ppl that they may not
>>> even be providing connectivity too?
>>
>> This proposal only takes effect *after* AfriNIC has absolutely zero
>> addresses left. Long after the policy you mention has been in force
>> and is null or useless because of empty RIR pool.
>
> Unless some address space gets returned, then the policy would come
> back into force, no?
>
>>
>>> IIRC, it was also the sense of the community that addresses should
>>> stay in Africa, per the Soft-Landing Policy just passed.  This
>>> proposal would make it impossible for AfriNIC to ensure that those
>>> addresses did stay within the continent.
>>
>> How can that action be enforced?
>
> The RIR can revoke allocations and assignments.  It's rare, but it's possible.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel