[rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!

Fri Jun 28 17:52:08 UTC 2019

Jordi

I saw all your presentations and I have read both your policy proposals on
Inter-RIR transfers. Please first fix your problem statement for both since
the problem statement in itself doesn't make sense to me as its subtle
because we are not into the business of aligning our region with other
regions especially when our region was under served with IPv4 resources
from the beginning.

Also respond to some of the concerns from staff that were raised during the
PPM meeting while you were presenting your proposal.

Noah

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:59 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <
rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Hi Noah,
>
>
>
> I’m not sure if you saw my presentation. I’ve provided enough data as to
> have a clear view on this. What are you missing exactly?
>
>
>
> If that data is not enough (I think it is), I don’t think is necessarily
> my task to look for more data, which probably is public anyway, but this
> may be part of the impact analysis as well or if you have specific
> questions, I can try to respond myself or rely the questions to the staff
> and the NRO (which compile data from all the RIRs).
>
>
>
> The proposal authors are volunteer people from the community, and we are
> able to help as much as we can. The staff is paid for resolving questions
> about resource numbers availability.
>
>
>
> Now, a specific question for you. How many inhabitants has Africa? How
> many of them are connected? So for the rest, do you think it is possible
> with the remaining resources to be actually connected or it will mean a
> level of CGN which may potentially break may applications?
>
>
>
> You need to realize that intra-RIR will only allow to move addresses in
> the region, so if there are not enough addresses and there is not
> sufficient IPv6 deployment so less IPv4 addresses are needed, how do you do
> that?
>
>
>
> Finally. Do you have any bright idea to convince the folks in the other
> regions to change their policies and allow non-reciprocal transfers so
> addresses can **only** come-in to Africa as you’re suggesting? Why, for
> example, ARIN should do that? How we can convince them if they already
> declared, when their policy was done, that they want only a fair policy
> even if it was clear that the direction of the transfers will be mainly
> outgoing (as proven by the statistics and data in my slides)?
>
>
>
> Saludos,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 28/6/19 13:17, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz> escribió:
>
>
>
> So Jordi,
>
> I still oppose this policy with strongest terms possible. I still believe
> IPv4 space will leave our region so fast when holders of Idle space who are
> yet to put them to good use as was allocated/assigned will trade them for
> some dollars rather than return them to AfriNIC. What we need is a policy
> that would discourage IPv4 from being transferred out of the region because
> of attractive prices of IPv$ but rather encourage more space coming into
> the region.
>
> We already have a transfer policy that can facilitate internal transfers
> withing our region and I am keen of getting a report from AfriNIC on how
> this is going.
>
> @Jordi, please also share some statistical numbers of available IPv4 space
> that would actually come into our region so that we can work with figures
> rather than assumptions.
>
> Noah
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:01 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
>
> Hi again Sylvain,
>
>
>
> I’m very thankful for your inputs!
>
>
>
> We need to make sure that others also participate!
>
>
>
> See below in-line.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 21/6/19 23:15, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Le vendredi 21 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> a écrit :
>
> Hi Sylvain,
>
>
>
> I want to thank you, I guess we won a “strong” contributor to policy
> discussions! (I recall your name from previous discussions, but you’re now
> more active, which is what I wish from every one).
>
>
>
> :-D ...please don't expose me too much Jordi ;-)
>
> I'm just trying to do my best...i'm not any kind of expert :'-(
>
>
>
> Now I realized that you were not on-site, pity!
>
>
>
>  See below, in-line.
>
>
>
> Saludos,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 20/6/19 22:37, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Please see, inline, below...
>
>
> Le jeudi 20 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Sylvain,
>
>
>
> Sorry the email was sent before I finished it …
>
>
>
> Responding below, in-line.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 20/6/19 15:05, "Sylvain BAYA" <abscoco at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> Le jeudi 20 juin 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a
> écrit :
>
> As said, this text is redundant (see specific text below my signature),
> but I don't mind to have explicit text if this facilitate the community to
> reach consensus.
>
> Here is my proposal, again, please comment about this ASAP, so we can
> submit a new version already, instead of waiting to be closer to the next
> meeting. This way we can ensure that we get on time the staff impact
> analysis, in case something else need to be amended.
>
> "The Inter-RIR transfers will be automatically suspended in case the
> balance between IPv4 out-going and in-coming addresses becomes cero."
>
>
>
> Jordi,
>
> ...typos on “zero” ?
>
>
>
> Yeah … my spelling checker often confuses English and Spanish!
>
>
>
> Anyway, here is a better version, because this balance is actually “cero”
> at the start of the implementation, so the text may be misleading, we need
> to define .
>
>
>
> Alright !
>
> I like the new visage of this policy proposal because i really appreciate
> the way you are leading the discussions around it.
>
>
>
> Believe me, that I always try to heard everybody position and accommodate
> as much as possible, my own thinking/knowledge and the text to that (or
> convincing other if I believe they have a wrong vision). This is the way to
> reach consensus.
>
>
>
> Go ahead on this way ! i declare my support for such an approach, because
> i'm personaly sharing a similar approach.
>
>
>
> Hopefully other participants will also share it.
>
>
>
> While contributing to this thread, what i want is to be sure that this
> policy proposal could be really beneficial to AFRINIC region|community.
>
>
>
> Same as me, again, the right thing to do.
>
> “The Inter-RIR transfers will only be enabled once AFRINIC enter into
> Exhaustion Phase 2 (5.4.3.2). The Inter-RIR transfers will be automatically
> suspended in case the number of out-going IPv4 addresses exceeds the
> in-coming ones by six consecutive months.”
>
>
>
> This version is a good starting point. Thanks.
>
>
>
> I understand it like this :
>
> * This Policy Validity Starting Point : Exhaustion Phase 2
>
> * Initial point : balance of zero (nothing in|out)
>
> * First auto-stop point : when the in/out balance becomes down
>
> ..* After 06 consecutive months {seems to be not interesting for me}
>
> ..* Even 02 consecutive months is not really interesting, because we miss
> an #x amount (or %) of resource (IPv4) limit to not reach at any time
> (without any mention of #y consecutive months) to reduce an unwilling risk.
>
>
>
> This policy shall be able, maybe, to stop a transaction (in course) which
> could conduct us out of a specific low acceptable in/out balance. So think
> about it again please.
>
>
>
> This is not possible, I believe, unless someone discovers a “magic way to
> write it down” (which I can’t see now). Anyway, I’m still trying to think
> something before ending this email …
>
>
>
> ...quite difficult for sure :-)
>
>
>
> It's simply confirming us that to reach the *goal* of this (and other)
> policy proposal, we need to think deeply on details. Other meaning : we
> need more active volunteers|participants engaged with sincere contributions.
>
>
>
> **EXACTLY!** Meetings time is precious and we aren’t allowed to modify
> the text of the proposals on-site, we need inputs way ahead!
>
> I’ve not personally been involved in transfers, but I understand the
> process and transfers don’t happen “in the second”. There are documents to
> review, justification to be reviewed by the two RIRs, contracts to be
> signed, payments to be done (via an escrow), etc. It is a matter of several
> days or weeks.
>
>
>
> Thanks for these clarifications.
>
>
>
> It may happen that in the middle of a month, several “negotiations” for
> transfers are running, and some of them in one or the other direction may
> reach or not in time for the end of that month. That’s why I’m suggesting a
> number of months.
>
>
>
> ...to my knowledge, to better text this situation (and reach the *goal*)
> we must considere that the transfer is started when the parties have sent a
> request to the staff.
>
>
>
> What we can also do is to add a new section with advices for those who
> will need to start a inter RIR transfer procedure. On that section, we
> shall explain why they must not take more than one (?), two or three months
> to complete the pre-process (b2b negociations). They shall know and
> understand the risk to come too late to the staff to request a transfer ;
> because the negociation phase took too much time... :-/
>
>
>
> I don’t think this is possible. Transfers have a lot of “business talks”
> among the parties. Only once the parties have reached an agreement, they
> need to go into the process. You could do on the other way around, it can
> be a mix of both. I don’t think the community must provide a rule on that,
> because this has not been done in other RIRs. If we try to setup our own
> rule, then our policy will have mismatches with the other policies and then
> we may be in the situation that they are not reciprocal, or the existing
> procedures in the other regions need to be re-worked, why they are going to
> do it, now that we are the last one?.
>
> If the staff tries to evaluate the transfers at a single point in time, it
> may be misleading as some operations in the opposite direction may be being
> processed. The RIRs may have an “alert” of a possible transfer, depending
> on the direction, I don’t know if the exiting coordination systems allow
> them to check those (this will sort out the problem), but still will not be
> precise, as some other folks may be “negotiating” a transfer and have not
> yet informed the relevant RIRs until the parties agree.
>
>
>
> Ok, we need a clarification from the staff. But before that, i propose
> something below to address the problem...
>
>
>
> If we stop the policy immediately the balance becomes “bad” for AFRINIC,
> then a transfer in the other direction will not be able to happen. You see
> the point.
>
>
>
> Ok you are right ! But let me try other possibility|solution i see : are
> we still prioritising incoming transfers ? :-)
>
> To be sure, i think we can include a similar (to the following) text
> (about transfer procedure) :
>
>
>
> “Initiators of a transfer must start the procedure earlier by submitting
> their request. The transfer procedure is concluded after a cycle of $four
> months, devided in two periods of $two months for each. Initiators submit
> their case to the staff and wait for the staff to give their conclusion at
> least $two months after the "submissions period" and not more than $four
> months (including the "verification period"). The staff will collect the
> cases (submissions|requests) during the "submissions period". The staff can
> start to study the cases immediately, after receiving them, until the end
> of the "verification period" which is coinciding with the next "submission
> period"; while collecting other cases. Those in line with the CPM (policy
> compliant) at the end of the correspondent "verification period". The staff
> should focus to the goal : keep the in/out balance exceding. Incoming
> transfer submissions shall be prioritised and treated separately.”
>
>
>
> I don’t think this will work, as I just explained a few reasons above. In
> principle I will not support this.
>
>
>
> With this bit of text, i'm trying to solve a problem you raised above.
>
>
>
> It does, at least, the following :
>
> * To change the approach in considering that
>
> * We can considerably diminish the risk by allowing the staff to study the
> transfer submissions (cases) during the same dedicated "verifications
> period" (even just during $one month if possible) and
>
> * Inform all the requestors only after the "verifications period"
>
> * With the *goal* balance in mind :-)
>
> * Special treathment for incoming transfers ;-)
>
> * A cycle of four months within two equal periods for submissions and
> verifications
>
> * More control of the balance
>
> * Focus : *goal* balance
>
> * ...
>
>
>
> See below … it is not needed. I think, just you misunderstood my point 4.
>
>
>
> We need to “take a bit of risk”, considering that the real risk, looking
> at the numbers I’ve presented is really low.
>
>
>
> I agree, but just a *bit of risk* :-)
>
>
>
> I wasn't able to follow your first presentation during the PPM (Public
> Policy Meeting), just the Hijacking one. Please share the slides of all
> your policy proposal presentations.
>
>
>
> And now I realize this is part of the problem for your questions. Please,
> pause this discussion until you’re able to see the video of my presentation
> and the slides! I guess then you may change a bit your view about the risk,
> etc.
>
>
>
> I already asked the staff (previous email) to make sure they are published
> tomorrow. I think they deserve the break today :-)
>
>
>
> Remember that “nobody” from AFRINIC is forced to sell. Who will sell?
> Those that for example, reduce or close the business, or those that deploy
> IPv6, etc.
>
>
>
>  Ok it walk samely for incoming and outgoing transfers. Considering that
> we have a seller and a buyer on both side transfers.
>
>
>
> Who will buy? Those that go to AFRINIC, ask for more, can’t get all what
> they need, and try to get the rest of their needs via transfers.
>
>
>
> What is the logic here? Why ARIN is the major donator to all the other
> RIRs?
>
>
>
> ...to what i recall [1] they still have too much unused IPv4 addresses.
>
>
>
> If we don’t take a risk, we lose.
>
>
>
> ...i'm ok with that, but let's try to find the lowest risk :-)
>
>
>
> This means that if one month there are “more addresses going out”, it
> happens again the next month, and it happens again by a third month and so
> on, then is suspended.
>
>
>
> ...so monthly public reports should be needed (for the community to
> follow-up and for more transparency) ?
>
>
>
> If yes, let's clearly state|text it also.
>
>
>
> I believe there is already a public AFRINIC reporting of the Inter-RIR
> transfers, so we will see this reported ASAP any transfer is completed I
> think.
>
>
>
> Can someone share an uri ?
>
> I think we must insert this requirement to the relevant section of the
> CPM, if not existent.
>
>
>
> If this is not the case (can please the staff confirm?), I fully agree
> (for both Inter and Intra-RIR) and will add a specific text so they are
> reported, not just monthly, but with each completed transfer.
>
>
>
> You are welcome ! Thanks :-)
>
>
>
> Which this web page, any member, the board, etc., can tell the staff at
> any point, if they don’t realize by themselves, “hey what is going on here?
> Are we good with the transfers?”.
>
>
>
> Yes, transparency and more power to the community ;-)
>
>
>
> I’ve also added a condition to make sure that this policy only starts once
> we are in the next exhaustion phase.
>
>
>
> So, you shall consider that, if AFRINIC service|community doesn't gain
> anything in the balance this policy should not be needed...
>
> And that should be clearly stated.
>
>
>
> I agree with that, but I don’t think we need to put that in the policy
> text, this should be in the text of the policy justification.
>
>
>
> ...wasn't the point here. Apologize but English is not my first tongue.
>
>
>
> What i was (trying) advising|suggesting is to ensure to text it the
> clearest possible ; in order to remove any ambiguity.
>
> I'm glad that you have seen, by yourself, that there was a problem with
> the first zero state.
>
>
>
> Got it, thanks! And nothing to excuse!
>
> Note that in order to make it simpler, I've used a text that instead of
> talking about %, is stating that the balance of in/out is reached. This way
> we ensure that the total number of the "region IPv4 addresses" never can go
> down regarding the actual figures, so Africa never will lose addresses. Do
> you think this is good enough?
>
>
>
> Ok after policing this, it seems to be necessary to clearly state,
> *“policily”*, that the staff must follow-up (automatically) the in/out
> balance, with regular (automated) public reports and a special (auto) stop
> report (for the zero state).
>
>
>
> I'm not sure how to "policy-ze" this idea. Perhaps with a separate policy ?
>
>
>
> I’m not completely sure to understand 100% what you mean, but let me try
> anyway: Staff is mandated to follow the policies. So, during the
> implementation the staff will make the necessary provisions so they get an
> alarm when the balance of in-coming vs out-going addresses becomes cero. It
> may be done automatically anyway, but at least they should get an “alarm”.
> The operational details about “how” to implement this are outside of the
> policy scope.
>
>
>
> Ok i am in accord with the logic of separation between policy rules and
> their operational implementations. I don't want us to “policy-ze” the
> implementation phase of any policy :-)
>
>
>
> But you probably miss something in my above suggestion.
>
>
>
> The point is that, if you don't clearly ask, via a policy, for a regular
> (public) report (for example) from the staff, you could not be sure to get
> it when it shall be needed. Because, without a specific policy provision,
> it will be just out of their duties...
>
>
>
> Let’s try it again, based on all the discussion (the numbers are just to
> split the text now, they will be correctly placed in the relevant part of
> the policy proposal when we “reach consensus” about this text:
>
>
>
> 1.       Each time a transfer is completed, the relevant,
> non-confidential information will be automatically published in a specific
> web page, including at least: Date of the transfer, transferred addresses,
> source organization and RIR, destination organization and RIR.
>
> 2.       The Inter-RIR transfers will only be enabled once AFRINIC enter
> into Exhaustion Phase 2 (5.4.3.2).
>
> 3.       The Inter-RIR transfers will be automatically suspended in case
> the number of outgoing IPv4 addresses exceeds the incoming ones by six
> consecutive months.
>
> 4.       The staff can provisionally suspend any suspicious operation
> that creates a big unbalance against AFRINIC, until the board takes a
> decision.
>
> See point 4. If there is any suspicious unbalance, the suspension
> temporary suspension of **that** operation protects our pool of
> addresses, for a few days (I guess the board in that case should call for a
> decision by email or by conference call), and meanwhile, it can be observed
> if other “incoming” operations will restore the balance.
>
>
>
> Possible solution, thanks for the effort you produced above. But there is
> still more than acceptable risk on it (including point 4) ; because the
> next new transfer request can come after the *few* days of suspension.
>
>
>
> The point here is that the staff is still able to suspend any suspicious
> operation. Not just one. Is not that clear my text? (any)
>
>
>
> Please look how to also consider the alternative solution i have proposed
> above. I don't need you to keep that text as it is, but to use it to
> figure how it could be merged with yours and reduce the risk (no suspension
> with it).
>
> __
>
> [1]: MIT and their 8 million IPv4 addresses –
> https://www.techspot.com/news/69055-mit-unload-8-million-ipv4-addresses-fund-ipv6.html
>
>
>
> Friendly,
>
> --sb.
>
>
>
> I really believe this is not needed, it can be done applying the bylaws
> (very recently ARIN board suspended in emergency a policy, so it is a good
> demonstration that this works even if is not in the policy) but I’m happy
> to keep this text if this means that we are more unconcerned this way.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190628/3ecdb773/attachment-0001.html>