[rpd] Afrinic Resources Transfer

[Eucharia Maryann]

Hello Chevalier



> I opposed this and any out of continent transfer policy at this time. I

can revise my choice when ALL RIRs have finish their free pool. Otherwise,
this policy can as well be call


>> Eucharia:  Why Should we wait until the exhaustion phase of free pool?

Why do we like to cure rather than to prevent (prevention they said, is
better than cure)

>>What will it cost Afrinic to embrace this proposal?

>>Please outline the disadvantages/problems you think this policy will

cause AFRINIC or you can also state clearly what you think is not
explicitly explained so that the author of this policy can address them
because all I know is that AFRINIC needs this policy.
Thanks

Simply Eucharia.


On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 19:51 <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:


> Send RPD mailing list submissions to

>         rpd at afrinic.net

>

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

>         rpd-request at afrinic.net

>

> You can reach the person managing the list at

>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net

>

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."

>

>

> Today's Topics:

>

>    1. Re: AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy (Chevalier du Borg)

>    2. Re: AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy (Chevalier du Borg)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 22:46:36 +0400

> From: Chevalier du Borg <virtual.borg at gmail.com>

> To: Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com>

> Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy

> Message-ID:

>         <

> CAH5aO8csSQOtshzwhu3m4fvb8HxGkLirNYvzgtpz7yrHUrk5vA at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>

> Le dim. 10 nov. 2019 ? 21:46, Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com> a

> ?crit :

>

> > In the whole of these mix, can't we have the transfer of the resource to

> > be temporal.

> >

> >  For example I have a pool of ipv4 resources that I am not utilising at

> > the moment, I should be able to lease it out for a period say 24months or

> > more. And if I have a need for the resource later, I should be able to

> > retrieve it back without going to  the RIR for another allocation.

> >

>

>

> Because the resources were give to you base on NEED. If you no longer need

> it, return it to AfriNIC and when you need it, go back for me.

>

>

>

> >

> > Furthemore after the retrieval and.i am still short of my current needs i

> > can approach the RIR for new allocation I believe.

> >

> > The point is, my earlier leased resource can be used anywhere in the

> > world, then how does all the current Inter RIR policies under discussion

> > takes care of this situation.

> >

> > Simply

> > Daniel

> >

> >

> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 5:54 PM Chevalier du Borg <virtual.borg at gmail.com>

> > wrote:

> >

> >>

> >> I opposed this and any out of continent transfer policy at this time. I

> >> can revise my choice when ALL RIRs have finish their free pool.

> Otherwise,

> >> this policy can as well be call

> >>

> >> "The AfriNIC Broker Support Policy"

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> Le mer. 6 nov. 2019 ? 23:42, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a ?crit :

> >>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 07:00 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

> >>> wrote:

> >>>

> >>> This proposal states in 5.7.3.2 that "the source entities are eligible

> >>> to receive further IPv4 allocations or assigments from AFRINIC". What

> is

> >>> the logic on that ?

> >>> If a organization is transferring its resources it means it doesn't

> need

> >>> them anymore and therefore it doesn't make sense they can receive any

> >>> further space from AFRINIC.

> >>>

> >>> Transferring out should not result in a permanent ban on acquiring more

> >>> resources, but there should definitely be some hold-down time to

> prevent

> >>> address cycling and speculation.

> >>>

> >>

> >>

> >> Why not?

> >> Unless they can prove they retrieve the last block of address they

> >> 'transfer' (aka SELL), why should they get more from the community pool?

> >> And again. I oppose this "The AfriNIC Broker Support Policy"

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>>

> >>> Suggest that sources of resources for transfer be prohibited from

> >>> acquiring additional resources for at least 24 months.

> >>>

> >>> It also proposes in 5.7.4.1 that "the transfer does not require

> approval

> >>> from AFRINIC". Of course there must be a mutual agreement on both

> sides for

> >>> a transfer to happen but the RIR must check everything and 'approve'

> that

> >>> everything is correct and can happen. Furthermore the justification for

> >>> coming 10 years it way to long and I've never seen it in any other

> place

> >>> which for me doesn't make sense otherwise would clearly allow

> stockpiling

> >>> which is one of the key things to be avoided in IP assignment since the

> >>> very beginning.

> >>>

> >>> Agreed? Recipients of transfers should be subject to the same reviews

> as

> >>> recipients of space from the free pool, IMHO. Further, local sources of

> >>> resources for transfer should be validated by the RIR as the

> legitimate and

> >>> uncontested registrant.

> >>>

> >>> For inter-RIR transfers, I would suggest the following:

> >>> Source Entity should be verified by Source RIR according to that RIR?s

> >>> policies and practices.

> >>> Recipient Entity should be verified by Destination RIR according to

> that

> >>> RIR?s policies and practices.

> >>>

> >>> This is the general approach taken in the existing inter-RIR transfer

> >>> policies and will yield greatest compatibility with existing inter-RIR

> >>> policies.

> >>>

> >>> The proposal also removes something fundamental to fix a historical

> >>> mistake, with the removal o 5.7.4.3 which converts legacy transferred

> >>> resources to non-legacy.

> >>>

> >>> Agreed?

> >>>

> >>> There should, in my opinion, be no such thing as legacy resources, only

> >>> legacy registrations. An existing registration which existed before

> the RIR

> >>> and has not been brought into contract with an existing RIR is a legacy

> >>> registration. Any transfer or other transaction which involves a

> change in

> >>> ownership of that registration should require that the recipient enter

> a

> >>> contract with the RIR and that the new registration be non-legacy.

> >>>

> >>> If the authors can adopt these recommendations, I could support the

> >>> proposal. Without them, I must oppose the proposal as written.

> >>>

> >>> Owen

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> _______________________________________________

> >>> RPD mailing list

> >>> RPD at afrinic.net

> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> >>>

> >>

> >>

> >> --

> >> Borg le Chevalier

> >> ___________________________________

> >> "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat"

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> RPD mailing list

> >> RPD at afrinic.net

> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> >>

> >

> > On Nov 10, 2019 5:54 PM, "Chevalier du Borg" <virtual.borg at gmail.com>

> > wrote:

> >

> >

> > I opposed this and any out of continent transfer policy at this time. I

> > can revise my choice when ALL RIRs have finish their free pool.

> Otherwise,

> > this policy can as well be call

> >

> > "The AfriNIC Broker Support Policy"

> >

> >

> >

> > Le mer. 6 nov. 2019 ? 23:42, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a ?crit :

> >

> >>

> >>

> >> On Nov 6, 2019, at 07:00 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

> >> wrote:

> >>

> >> This proposal states in 5.7.3.2 that "the source entities are eligible

> to

> >> receive further IPv4 allocations or assigments from AFRINIC". What is

> the

> >> logic on that ?

> >> If a organization is transferring its resources it means it doesn't need

> >> them anymore and therefore it doesn't make sense they can receive any

> >> further space from AFRINIC.

> >>

> >> Transferring out should not result in a permanent ban on acquiring more

> >> resources, but there should definitely be some hold-down time to prevent

> >> address cycling and speculation.

> >>

> >

> >

> > Why not?

> > Unless they can prove they retrieve the last block of address they

> > 'transfer' (aka SELL), why should they get more from the community pool?

> > And again. I oppose this "The AfriNIC Broker Support Policy"

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >>

> >> Suggest that sources of resources for transfer be prohibited from

> >> acquiring additional resources for at least 24 months.

> >>

> >> It also proposes in 5.7.4.1 that "the transfer does not require approval

> >> from AFRINIC". Of course there must be a mutual agreement on both sides

> for

> >> a transfer to happen but the RIR must check everything and 'approve'

> that

> >> everything is correct and can happen. Furthermore the justification for

> >> coming 10 years it way to long and I've never seen it in any other place

> >> which for me doesn't make sense otherwise would clearly allow

> stockpiling

> >> which is one of the key things to be avoided in IP assignment since the

> >> very beginning.

> >>

> >> Agreed? Recipients of transfers should be subject to the same reviews as

> >> recipients of space from the free pool, IMHO. Further, local sources of

> >> resources for transfer should be validated by the RIR as the legitimate

> and

> >> uncontested registrant.

> >>

> >> For inter-RIR transfers, I would suggest the following:

> >> Source Entity should be verified by Source RIR according to that RIR?s

> >> policies and practices.

> >> Recipient Entity should be verified by Destination RIR according to that

> >> RIR?s policies and practices.

> >>

> >> This is the general approach taken in the existing inter-RIR transfer

> >> policies and will yield greatest compatibility with existing inter-RIR

> >> policies.

> >>

> >> The proposal also removes something fundamental to fix a historical

> >> mistake, with the removal o 5.7.4.3 which converts legacy transferred

> >> resources to non-legacy.

> >>

> >> Agreed?

> >>

> >> There should, in my opinion, be no such thing as legacy resources, only

> >> legacy registrations. An existing registration which existed before the

> RIR

> >> and has not been brought into contract with an existing RIR is a legacy

> >> registration. Any transfer or other transaction which involves a change

> in

> >> ownership of that registration should require that the recipient enter a

> >> contract with the RIR and that the new registration be non-legacy.

> >>

> >> If the authors can adopt these recommendations, I could support the

> >> proposal. Without them, I must oppose the proposal as written.

> >>

> >> Owen

> >>

> >>

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> RPD mailing list

> >> RPD at afrinic.net

> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> >>

> >

> >

> > --

> > Borg le Chevalier

> > ___________________________________

> > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat"

> > _______________________________________________

> > RPD mailing list

> > RPD at afrinic.net

> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> >

> >

> >

>

> --

> Borg le Chevalier

> ___________________________________

> "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat"

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/15f8579d/attachment-0001.html

> >

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Message: 2

> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 22:51:04 +0400

> From: Chevalier du Borg <virtual.borg at gmail.com>

> To: Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za>

> Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy

> Message-ID:

>         <CAH5aO8dkVqTU0SmHR6Rkg8b92H1=4D_yZoh75APv=

> Q5gSvD2KQ at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>

> Le dim. 10 nov. 2019 ? 21:58, Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> a ?crit :

>

> > Hi Chevalier.

> >

> > Please allow me to be blunt.  That's short sighted.

> >

> > We cannot transfer IN from other regions unless we allow OUT.

> >

>

> Agree 100%,

> Then you have no problems with wait till all RIRs are equal run out before

> we etablish full in and out transfer policy no?

>

>

> > All the other RIRs require reciprocal *compatible* policies, which means

> > bi-directional transfers.

> >

>

>

> All RIRs don't all have equal amount of free space. Big difference

>

>

>

> > Not allowing this means we can't get resources in either.

> >

>

> While AfriNIC have free space, operators don't need it

> When it run out, then we can allow transfer policy

>

>

> Until that time, I oppose these "AfriNIC Broker Support Policy"

>

>

>

> > Kind Regards,

> > Jaco Kroon

> > C.E.O.

> >

> > *T:* +27 (0)12 021 0000 | *F:* +27 86 648 8561 | *E:* jaco at iewc.co.za

> > *W:* iewc.co.za <https://www.iewc.co.za/> | *A:* Unit 201, Building 2B,

> > Sunwood Park, Queen's Crescent Lynnwood, Pretoria

> >

> >

> >

> > [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/Interexcel/> [image:

> Twitter]

> > <https://twitter.com/Interexcel/> [image: Google+]

> > <https://plus.google.com/+InterexcelCoZaPTA/posts> [image: LinkedIn]

> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/interexcel-world-connection/>

> >

> > [image: IEWC] <https://www.iewc.co.za/> [image: ULS Group]

> > <http://www.uls.co.za/>

> > On 2019/11/10 18:50, Chevalier du Borg wrote:

> >

> >

> > I opposed this and any out of continent transfer policy at this time. I

> > can revise my choice when ALL RIRs have finish their free pool.

> Otherwise,

> > this policy can as well be call

> >

> > "The AfriNIC Broker Support Policy"

> >

> >

> >

> > Le mer. 6 nov. 2019 ? 23:42, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a ?crit :

> >

> >>

> >>

> >> On Nov 6, 2019, at 07:00 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

> >> wrote:

> >>

> >> This proposal states in 5.7.3.2 that "the source entities are eligible

> to

> >> receive further IPv4 allocations or assigments from AFRINIC". What is

> the

> >> logic on that ?

> >> If a organization is transferring its resources it means it doesn't need

> >> them anymore and therefore it doesn't make sense they can receive any

> >> further space from AFRINIC.

> >>

> >> Transferring out should not result in a permanent ban on acquiring more

> >> resources, but there should definitely be some hold-down time to prevent

> >> address cycling and speculation.

> >>

> >

> >

> > Why not?

> > Unless they can prove they retrieve the last block of address they

> > 'transfer' (aka SELL), why should they get more from the community pool?

> > And again. I oppose this "The AfriNIC Broker Support Policy"

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >>

> >> Suggest that sources of resources for transfer be prohibited from

> >> acquiring additional resources for at least 24 months.

> >>

> >> It also proposes in 5.7.4.1 that "the transfer does not require approval

> >> from AFRINIC". Of course there must be a mutual agreement on both sides

> for

> >> a transfer to happen but the RIR must check everything and 'approve'

> that

> >> everything is correct and can happen. Furthermore the justification for

> >> coming 10 years it way to long and I've never seen it in any other place

> >> which for me doesn't make sense otherwise would clearly allow

> stockpiling

> >> which is one of the key things to be avoided in IP assignment since the

> >> very beginning.

> >>

> >> Agreed? Recipients of transfers should be subject to the same reviews as

> >> recipients of space from the free pool, IMHO. Further, local sources of

> >> resources for transfer should be validated by the RIR as the legitimate

> and

> >> uncontested registrant.

> >>

> >> For inter-RIR transfers, I would suggest the following:

> >> Source Entity should be verified by Source RIR according to that RIR?s

> >> policies and practices.

> >> Recipient Entity should be verified by Destination RIR according to that

> >> RIR?s policies and practices.

> >>

> >> This is the general approach taken in the existing inter-RIR transfer

> >> policies and will yield greatest compatibility with existing inter-RIR

> >> policies.

> >>

> >> The proposal also removes something fundamental to fix a historical

> >> mistake, with the removal o 5.7.4.3 which converts legacy transferred

> >> resources to non-legacy.

> >>

> >> Agreed?

> >>

> >> There should, in my opinion, be no such thing as legacy resources, only

> >> legacy registrations. An existing registration which existed before the

> RIR

> >> and has not been brought into contract with an existing RIR is a legacy

> >> registration. Any transfer or other transaction which involves a change

> in

> >> ownership of that registration should require that the recipient enter a

> >> contract with the RIR and that the new registration be non-legacy.

> >>

> >> If the authors can adopt these recommendations, I could support the

> >> proposal. Without them, I must oppose the proposal as written.

> >>

> >> Owen

> >>

> >>

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> RPD mailing list

> >> RPD at afrinic.net

> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> >>

> >

> >

> > --

> > Borg le Chevalier

> > ___________________________________

> > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat"

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://

> lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> >

> >

>

> --

> Borg le Chevalier

> ___________________________________

> "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat"

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/296f69c0/attachment.html

> >

> -------------- next part --------------

> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...

> Name: ico-facebook.jpg

> Type: image/jpeg

> Size: 1302 bytes

> Desc: not available

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/296f69c0/attachment.jpg

> >

> -------------- next part --------------

> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...

> Name: ico-twitter.jpg

> Type: image/jpeg

> Size: 1423 bytes

> Desc: not available

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/296f69c0/attachment-0001.jpg

> >

> -------------- next part --------------

> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...

> Name: ico-linkedin.jpg

> Type: image/jpeg

> Size: 1444 bytes

> Desc: not available

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/296f69c0/attachment-0002.jpg

> >

> -------------- next part --------------

> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...

> Name: ie.jpg

> Type: image/jpeg

> Size: 3906 bytes

> Desc: not available

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/296f69c0/attachment-0003.jpg

> >

> -------------- next part --------------

> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...

> Name: ulsgroup.jpg

> Type: image/jpeg

> Size: 10458 bytes

> Desc: not available

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/296f69c0/attachment-0004.jpg

> >

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Subject: Digest Footer

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

> End of RPD Digest, Vol 158, Issue 48

> ************************************

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191111/7893fbc1/attachment-0001.html>