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

[rpd] Draft inbound policy

Mike Burns mike at
Tue Jun 21 15:54:12 UTC 2016

Hi Owen,

Thanks for that. Like you, I think that the word "reciprocal" in ARIN's policy would prevent outbound transfers to AFRINIC should AFRINIC pass a one-way transfer policy. The comma placement seems to indicate that.

Still I am not certain. It would be nice if ARIN could chime in like Tore did, so that the AFRINIC community could make their considerations with all the relevant facts at hand.


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11:43 AM
To: Mike Burns <mike at>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore at>; rpd List <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Draft inbound policy


Since I cannot remember what fraction of the discussions you ask about were within the context of an AC meeting and what were public, I won’t comment here about those discussions at risk of violating my ARIN AC NDA.

I will say that it is my personal opinion that a one-way policy does not constitute an implementation of a “reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policy”.

However, I must be clear that in this case, I speak only for myself and do not represent or speak for the AC, the ARIN community, the ARIN staff, or ARIN as an organization.

I am not aware of any decision which contradicts my opinion in the matter.


> On Jun 21, 2016, at 08:01 , Mike Burns <mike at> wrote:
> 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?
> Regards,
> 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 region.
> 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