Search RPD Archives
[rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Mon Jul 15 20:37:00 UTC 2019
In message <046477A7-21A8-4C2D-AD47-DBE34D7D03D6 at delong.com>,
Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>In my experience, only AfriNIC and LACNIC ever really had much serious concern
>over that issue in considering inter-RIR transfer policies. Clearly LACNIC
>has finally come to the conclusion that it is less of a concern than being
> isolated from being able to import addresses as they have passed a bi-
>directional transfer policy.
>AfriNIC is now the lone holdout from the rest of the world on this issue.
>AfriNIC has very little space (relatively speaking) to offer even if every
>AfriNIC resource holder were to sell their entire holdings out of region (very
>Personally, I can't see any motivation for the other regions to accept
>such an idea. Can you?
For whatever little it's worth, I just feel compelled to say that Owen's
argument here does not appear to me to be a very persuasive one.
I think that we are all familiar with the concept of a "race to the bottom",
where regulations are loosened up in one state or province or country,
thereby effectively forcing others to follow suit in order to stay
"competitive", with the end result being that all regions suffer at the
hands of inexorable "market forces".
That all having been said, if the primary concern is the possibility (or
actually, high probability) of an eventual actual shortage, it is my personal
feeling that there are other and better ways to stave off, for the time
being at least, that certain eventuality... ways other than restricting
For example, I have noted that even now, in the current Afrinic "exhaustion"
phase, it is still perfectly within the current policy for Afrinic to grant,
to some single entity, as much as an entire /13 in a single assignment.
Personally, I feel that that is grossly excessive and that the policy limit
could be and should be set much lower, e.g. to e /14 or a /15 or perhaps
even to a /16. (Who in Africa is likely to need such big blocks at this
point in time, and all in one gulp?)
Also and separately, I noted during the discussions of this proposed
intra-RiR transfer policy that at least one person (sorry, I have forgotten
who it was now) made a side comment about the holding period before any
given number resource could be transfered to another region, and quoted it
as being one year.
Quite obvviously, nobody is particularly concerned about running out of
either ASNs or IPv6 addresses. So the issue/question really boils down
to just the issue of the holding period for IPv4 blocks.
It is my understanding... and I may perhaps be wrong about this... that
the required minimum holding period for IPv4 blocks, before they may be
transfered (either out of region or at all) in the case of RIPE is two
years. (I don't know what time periods the other regions are using, but
I'm fairly sure about the RIPE one.) On that basis, I think that it
would be unwise and ill-advised for Afrinic to adopt any more lenient
policy regarding the minimum holding period. Doing so would only serve
to encourage speculators at the expense of actual service to the African
continent, in the first instance.
More information about the RPD