[rpd] Draft inbound policy

[Owen DeLong]

What outbound policy?

Currently there is no outbound policy.

This is my point. The policy you have proposed is inherently unfair and turns AfriNIC into either some form of privileged citizen of the RIR community or a second-class citizen of the RIR community, depending on how you choose to look at it.

I see valid reasons not to approve an outbound transfer policy while AfriNIC still has an IPv4 free pool, but if that’s the concern, then let us not extend that limitation beyond the life of the AfriNIC IPv4 free pool.

Otherwise, it just seems wrong.

Owen

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 22:03 , Christopher Mwangi <christopher.mwangi at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
>  
> Because in that case , the resources would flow off the continent ,  which would then be covered under the outbound policy,
>  
> Thanks
> Christopher
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 2:21 AM
> To: Christopher Mwangi
> Cc: Danny; Sander Steffann; rpd List
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Draft inbound policy
>  
> In that case, why didn’t you handle the case where they merge into a non-African holding company too?
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Jun 19, 2016, at 02:00 , Christopher Mwangi <christopher.mwangi at liquidtelecom.com <mailto:christopher.mwangi at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>  
> Hi Danny,
> 
> An example would be Mergers and acquisition where an organization wanted to consolidate all resources (IPs and ASNs) into an African holding company.  
> 
> So we thought of having this one policy that all inclusive and takes care of that. 
> 
> Thanks 
> Christopher 
> From: Danny <afahounko at gmail.com <mailto:afahounko at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 2:00:16 PM
> To: Sander Steffann
> Cc: rpd List
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Draft inbound policy
>  
> Hello Andrews,
> We all agreed that IPv6 is the way to go (IPv4 depletion,  no NAT, etc..).
> In real use case what situation can force an infrastructure based in Afrinic region to use IPv6  ressources from other regions? And we all know that IPv6 by design can scale and cover almost all new generation infrastructures.
> Unless your policy draft is only about Ipv4? 
> Regards, 
> Danny
> On Jun 18, 2016 6:57 AM, "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>> wrote:
> Hi Kris,
> 
> > @Sander : What are the key provisions of the outbound policy in Ripe? or is there a two way policy already in place?
> 
> Our policy is very simple: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644>
> 
> RIPE currently has a policy that can work both ways, we work with whatever the other RIR requires. For transfers from the RIPE region we basically require that the outbound transfer conforms to the RIPE policy. For example: there are resources that cannot be transferred within 24 months of the seller getting them, to prevent people from getting or buying addresses and then selling them on immediately. Such restriction obviously still apply.
> 
> Roughly: if the transfer would be valid for a RIPE->RIPE transfer, it will also be valid for RIPE->OTHER-RIR transfers.
> 
> Cheers,
> Sander
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160620/6c2b4a3e/attachment.html>