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

[rpd] Draft inbound policy

Mike Burns mike at
Tue Jun 21 15:01:59 UTC 2016

I support the one-way policy although I would prefer it to be two-way.
I understand the fears that addresses would flow out of the region; the
LACNIC community expressed the same fears when considering a two-way policy
last year.  Many members actually feared that ISPs in Latin America would
voluntarily impose CGN just so they could sell their addresses!

I have experience with inter-regional transfers, I brokered the first one
back in 2012 and have done hundreds of them since.
I have brokered the odd APNIC to RIPE, or RIPE to APNIC, but the vast
majority of these addresses flow from the address-rich regions of ARIN (and
to a lesser extent RIPE) out to APNIC.
In areas with larger supplies of available IPv4, prices are lower. So in
almost every case the lowest price is for addresses sourced in the ARIN
region. This drives addresses out of ARIN as buyers from out-of-region
choose the lowest priced addresses.

By all means I think AFRINIC should avoid a strictly in-region transfer
policy, although that beats no transfer policy at all.  We are seeing issues
with the newly implemented intra-regional-only policy in LACNIC related to
lack of supply. Our fear is this will naturally cause prices to rise in that
region, or in any region where supply is constrained.

ARIN does require reciprocity for inter-regional transfers but I am not
certain if the implementation of the policy language would actually prevent
one-way transfers. We know that RIPE would support a one-way transfer
policy, thanks to Tore. 

Owen do you remember if the one-way option was ever brought up with the ARIN
staff or community and if so what the response was?  Was the word
"reciprocal" associated with two-way traffic, or was "reciprocal" associated
with a needs-test requirement by the recipient RIR?

Mike Burns

-----Original Message-----
From: Tore Anderson [mailto:tore at] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:18 AM
To: Owen DeLong <owen at>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Draft inbound policy

* Owen DeLong

> I am thoroughly opposed to this policy.
> It is not fair in that it is a one-way (inbound-only) policy. If 
> AfriNIC wants to participate in the inter-RIR transfer process, then 
> it should do so as a full citizen on an equal footing.

Speaking as a member of the RIPE community (but obviously not on behalf of
the RIPE community), I do not consider this proposed policy as being unfair
at all.

The RIPE community passed an Inter-RIR transfer policy that deliberately
does *not* require the other RIR's policy to be two-way.
Thus, if the AfriNIC community wants to open the door for one-way transfers
from the RIPE region, then that is totally fine as far as the RIPE
community's policies are concerned.

Should we change our mind about this later, it is of course possible for us
to change our Inter-RIR transfer policy at any point in the future, e.g., by
starting to demand reciprocity (like the ARIN community already does).

The proposed policy merely extends an invitation to the other four regions.
It is up to them to decide whether to accept it (like RIPE) or decline it
(like ARIN); the AfriNIC community simply does not have the power to
unilaterally force an unfair Inter-RIR transfer arrangement onto another

Tore (who neither supports nor objects to the proposed policy; I believe
AfriNIC policy should be for the AfriNIC community to decide)

RPD mailing list
RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list