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

[rpd] Proposal Update Received | IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope) | AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT02

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Wed Nov 13 04:59:49 UTC 2019

Owen, I was under the impression this point had been overcome in the
previous discussion when several people mentioned they would not agree
to start if not after Phase 2, then the author adjusted the text to that
and made it simpler and clear given that feedback.
You seem to be concerned with a scenario that doesn't exist or hardly
can be supported with any evidence, at least NRO numbers don't support
that there is any signal of organizations that will fall into what you
are supposing. As said if there is *any* it is not that they will not be
able to work until Phase 2, but they can still receive a fair amount of
IP addresses (a /13) and keep working until transfers are implemented,
so a quiet reasonable thing. Having to change the text for a possible
non existent scenario is unnecessary in my view.

LACNIC (which has a much faster pace than Africa in address allocation)
went Phase 2 and *just 2 years later* a Inter-RIR transfer policy
reached consensus and is not know of any major issues that happened in
the mean time. The case in Africa is even better than LACNIC because
this proposal is being discussed upfront, so the gap will be much short
to (again) a much shorter pace.
There fairness you asked is in the fact they can still receive a /13 and
the gap between consensus and Phase2 will be much shorter.

And last, a change in the way you propose will not have any practical
effects because will not be reciprocal to other RIRs until it enters
Phase 2 and AfriNic is able to do outgoing as well, so why change the
text for something unpractical ?

Therefore I don't really think is worth concern about this detail now
and why I consider the current text very appropriate.


On 13/11/2019 00:49, Owen DeLong wrote:



>> On Nov 12, 2019, at 17:34 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at

>> <mailto:fhfrediani at>> wrote:


>> On 12/11/2019 22:04, Owen DeLong wrote:

>>> <clip>

>>> I do not feel that 5.7.5 is needed. First, by the time this policy

>>> can be implemented, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that we will not

>>> already be in Phase 2. Second, even if that is not the case, at this

>>> point, there is no reason to prohibit organizations that wish to

>>> obtain resources via the transfer market from doing so.

>> I think this is the most important part of the new version, actually

>> without that I would never be able to support it and that was what

>> many others also manifested in the previous discussion.


> Let’s look at it rationally…


> 1.What’s the downside to allowing transfers prior to phase 2 starting

> given the other protections against anyone who does an outbound

> transfer ever receiving free pool resources?

> [If you can actually show a real one, them perhaps I’ll support this,

> but absent that, I have to ask wtf?]


> 2.Even if this policy somehow miraculously gained consensus at the

> December meeting, we’re still looking at June or later by the time

> staff is able to implement it. Given the expectation of hitting Phase

> 2 in December projected from October, even if they’re off by 200%,

> that would still have Phase 2 hitting in April, a full 2 months prior

> to earliest possible policy implementation.


>> It is a simple, fair and clear rule: "when Phase 2 starts", then

>> there is no risk at all of it starting earlier than it should.


> It’s a simple and clear rule. I don’t see the fairness.


>> I do not believe there will be many if any cases that will require

>> such big transfers as I do not believe any possible organization is

>> able to justify more than a /13 *at once*. In a very remote

>> hypothesis this is possible they can just receive the /13, work with

>> it in the meantime and wait until Phase 2 kicks in (pretty soon) to

>> be able to transfer whatever else. This is very reasonable, and makes

>> it more simple with a single rule for all.


> Yes, but what’s the point of putting language that will be a no-op by

> the time it is implemented into policy? It’s just cruft left over in

> the CPM that needs to get cleaned up later. Why not leave it out?

> There’s no benefit to having it.


> Can you show a single benefit to having it other than the idea that it

> somehow mollifies people who don’t understand the rest of the policy

> proposal as written and feel that this provides some additional

> protection?


>> Furthermore I don't think if changing that way it would be reciprocal

>> to other RIRs because it would not be valid for outgoing from

>> AfriNic. Therefore not worth concern about this.

>> The current text is fine in my view.


> I’m not worried about the reciprocity issue here. You’re right, it’s a

> no-op on that. However, it’s also a no-op in general and I’m morally

> opposed to adding non-operative language to the CPM just because it

> makes someone feel good.


> Owen



>>> <clip>


>>> Owen



>>>> On Nov 12, 2019, at 02:59 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

>>>> <rpd at <mailto:rpd at>> wrote:


>>>> Hi Owen,

>>>> As I already did that in other occasions for previous proposals,

>>>> here is it.


>>>> 1. Diff among v1 and v2 of this proposal:




>>>> 2. Diff among actual policy text and this proposal (v2)



>>>> I will do the same later with other updated proposals.

>>>> Note that I’m already working in a v3, considering your inputs, as

>>>> per the previous discussion in the list. Just holding it in case

>>>> there are further comments.

>>>> Regards,


>>>> Jordi


>>>> @jordipalet


>>>> El 12/11/19 4:00, "Owen DeLong" <owen at

>>>> <mailto:owen at>> escribió:

>>>> I don’t know about anyone else, but I would find it very helpful if

>>>> these announcements included a redline or other diff format showing

>>>> the difference between the prior version of the proposal and the

>>>> current one.

>>>> Owen



>>>>> On Nov 11, 2019, at 15:04 , Moses Serugo <moses.serugo at

>>>>> <mailto:moses.serugo at>> wrote:

>>>>> Hello PDWG Members,

>>>>> This is to notify you that the authors of the policy proposal

>>>>> named"IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)"

>>>>> have submitted an updated version (Draft version 2

>>>>> |AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT02) and now seek your comments and feedback.

>>>>> The proposal contents are published at


>>>>> Please take some time to go through the proposal contents and

>>>>> provide your feedback.

>>>>> Thank you.

>>>>> PDWG Co-chairs

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>


>>>> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

>>>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>



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

>>>> IPv4 is over

>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

>>>> <>

>>>> 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 <mailto:RPD at>




>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at


>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>



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

More information about the RPD mailing list