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

[rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR Legacy Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Aug 19 21:19:56 UTC 2019

> On Aug 19, 2019, at 13:42 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at> wrote:


> Hello Owen

> Thanks for your comments.


> On 19/08/2019 16:03, Owen DeLong wrote:


>> <clip>


>> Sanctioned how? By what power?


>> RIRs have no legal authority.

> Oh they do, by different ways.

> When any organization becomes a RIR member and receives a block, it is obliged to use it according to the current rules, policies and behave according to the bylaws and the contract they signed and agreed which by the way are completely valid in courts and which give this rights to RIRs to take resources back if any term is violated. There are cases where violations on the policy or how the organization handle the IP space can get these resources revoked from the organization. This works like that on any RIR, not just in AfriNIC.

Sure, but no legal authority stops them (or someone else) from deciding to use those same integers in a different way. They can exit their RIR contract at any time by allowing the RIR to invalidate that registration in the RIR system. If they can find enough ISPs willing to accept their use of the addresses in question and their continued advertisement of them without the RIR registering them as such, then the RIR becomes irrelevant in that process.

>> Any group of networks that want to create their own registry system and exchange packets on that basis are welcome to do so.

> Yes they do, but are you probably know it is not a trivial thing , specially being recognized but ICANN/IANA and there are strict principles to reach before that ( <>). Even if that would ever happen any blocks recovered under the basis mentioned above would never be given to this new registry, so the practical effect of it seems something far from happening.

They don’t need to be recognized by ICANN/IANA. That’s my point. If the RIRs push too hard, then the entire system, ICANN/IANA, RIRs, all can get bypassed by the people who run routers.

The new registry would have full control of to it’s own determination. It would be entirely up to the new registry or registry system whether they wanted to honor any of the previous IANA/ICANN/RIR registrations or not.

You’re continuing to fail to see that ALL OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM operates by consent. Consent of the ISPs, Consent of those running internet Exchanges, Consent of the end users (to some extent), etc.

The power of the RIRs is limited to the consent of the RIR participants. If the RIRs create a strong enough reason not to consent, they can be bypassed.


>> Transfers occurring “under the table” are not really under the table. They are better explained as “transfers occurring outside the purview of those cooperating with the RIR system”.

> And that violates the rules agreed by those who form the RIR and support its existence. Either we have rules and policies that everybody agrees to follow to be respected or we don't need any RIR systems.

But the transfers may or may not involve anyone who “form the RIR and support its existence”.

You are ignoring the fact that not everyone on the internet has signed an RSA with an RIR. In fact, the vast majority of internet users have not.

Everyone who chooses to participate in the RIR system agrees to and follows the rules to some extent. Once the RIR system no longer meets their needs, there is increasing incentive to bypass that process.

On a small scale, this likely hampers those choosing to bypass the process. However, when the process becomes sufficiently onerous that bypass begins to occur on large scale, then it is the RIR system which suffers more.

>> There’s no law that requires anyone to cooperate with the RIR system. It’s merely convenient and useful for ensuring uniqueness.

> There are laws that gives full support to contracts signed by between organizations and guidelines that must be followed. We are not talking about something specific or theoretic, but rather something recognized and followed internationally. I don't think any judge would give reason to an organization willing to act unilaterally in this scenario we are discussing.

Let’s hypothesize…

An organization was issued block A.0.0.0/8 by the IANA before RIRs existed and without any written contract.

Said organization chooses to sell off 256 separate /16s to 256 separate organizations without making any effort to record that sale in any RIR.

Because they can show a legitimate history to the acquisition of the blocks even though it is outside the RIR system, lots of ISPs accept their announcements and they are generally working.

Under what legal framework or theory are you going to sanction this process? How are you going to effectively go after any or all of those 257 organizations that never signed a contract with an RIR?

>> The only power the RIRs have is the number of ISPs who choose to cooperate with the RIR system. This creates an important balancing act. If the RIRs act in a manner that is too harmful to the ability of ISPs (and other address users) to achieve their goals, then the RIR system will be replaced with something else, or worse, the internet number management will be come fragmented amongst competing registry systems and uniqueness will become difficult (at best) to maintain. OTOH, if the IP using community does not cooperate in creating useful policies by which the RIR system operates and then following those policies, it creates a similar set of problems, on the opposite side of the equation.

> Useful policies to who ? To just a few cases, to private for-profit companies willing to take profit of these few cases or to majority of the members ?

> There have been different views in this discussion, while some believe it is good for the region which is fine, other see there are risks and possible harm to the resources destined to the region and to majority of organizations. Therefore it doesn't seem to be a consensus at the moment and this is not something good at the current system.

I would imagine useful to the once subscribing to the RIR and utilizing address space.

I never said I thought there was consensus around this policy at this time. I said I believed it was for the good of the region as a whole and that the risks faced by not implementing it or something similar are greater than the risks of implementing it.

You continue to repeat and point to the (theoretical) risks posed by implementing the proposed policy.
I continue to point out the very real risks that occur if the policy is not implemented. You try to convince me that there is some force available to prevent those risks. I point out that the force you point to is largely unable to address the risks as they exist. This is the nature of the deliberative process by which consensus is built or fails to be built.

In the end neither of us knows which way this debate will go. In the meantime, both of our arguments are valid and should be considered by the community. Eventually, the more convincing set of arguments will carry the day.

>> <clip>

>> The question isn’t whether the region will stop growing or not… It will not. The question is whether or not the addresses being used in the region will continue to be accurately managed by the local regional registry or whether that registry will become irrelevant and be bypassed in order to facilitate that process.

> Do we have in the history any case a scenario like this was raised ? Even with real examples of other RIRs that didn't have a Inter-RIR transfer policy ready when they went to Phase 2 like ? I don't think so. Everything went on and they got a transfer policy at the correct time for their reality. It just doesn't seem the correct time for Africa really. The scenario of chaos if such policy doesn't reach consensus is nonexistent.

>> <clip>


>>> Therefore I propose you abandon this proposal for now and re-present it in the future when the scenario changes and a policy like this is really needed and will bring benefits to the region.


>> Multiple people have already stated that this policy is already needed. Despite your continued assertions to the contrary, doesn’t change the facts on the ground. At this point, I think this policy is overdue.

> The same way multiple people stated opposition to this policy for same and different reasons I raised. Before commenting on this thread I have read every single message discussed previously and they are there for who wishes to take their own conclusions.


> Again I am not against having a Inter-RIR transfer policy at some point in the near future, but at the present in brings more harm than benefits to Africa.


Any discussion we are having here now is at least six months from becoming an implemented policy, so instead of arguing about whether it is harmful now, let’s talk about the near future… What is your definition of near future? To me, it’s less than 12 months, so if we want to have such a policy within 12 months, then the time to fine tune it and come to consensus on it is now. If you are looking more long-term, then that’s a different story.

RIR policies are slow-moving. If you wait until the policy is needed, you will spend a lot of time with needs being met outside of policy before the policy finally gets implemented.

Maybe you think that’s OK. That’s a perfectly valid perspective, but if that’s what you’re saying, then admit it and recognize the reality.

Otherwise, please consider that “unmet needs” aren’t going to be tolerated for very long and businesses will find ways to meet them. Preferably within the RIR system through policy changes such as an Inter-RIR transfer policy, but otherwise outside of the system.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list