This proposal seeks to allow one-way IPv4 address transfers originating in other regional registries towards LACNIC.

Allow one-way IPv4 address transfers originating in other regional registries towards LACNIC

LACNIC's transfer policies allow only intra-regional transfers. Thus, transfers depend on the willingness of LACNIC memb
ers to offer their excess resources. Given the current demand, this explains the limited amount of resources offered for
transfer.

With the exception of AFRINIC, all RIRs have exhausted their available IPv4 address pools. The only solution to this pro
blem is replacing them with IPv6 addresses. However, the reality is that IPv6 implementation in commercial networks is t
aking longer than expected. This situation has an economic and developmental impact on operators of all sizes, who are s
eeking solutions to this problem, such as implementing NAT or purchasing IPv4 resources under the transfer policies in f
orce at each RIR.

Recent studies conducted by RIPE and ARIN demonstrate that operators that acquire IPv4 resources exhibit greater growth
in terms of IPv6 utilization, which indicates that the more an operator grows its IPv4 network, the more it uses IPv6. T
hus, an operator which manages to increase its IPv4 resources is not delaying but rather increasing the use of IPv6.

LACNIC's current transfer policies (intra-regional transfers) provide minimum relief to the need for IPv4 addresses, as
they rely on the availability of LACNIC members willing to transfer their excess resources.

Reality makes it clear that there are very few resources available for transfer in the LACNIC region, and this translate
s into less Internet growth and economic development.

A policy of one-way interregional transfers towards LACNIC would allow a large number of operators throughout the region
to acquire resources and have them duly registered within LACNIC, while at the same time growing their networks and acc
elerating IPv6 use and penetration.

Because the LACNIC region has received less IPv4 assignments, there is little in terms of excess resource inventory. A p
olicy allowing “one-way interregional transfers to LACNIC” would allow access to a larger inventory of IPv4 blocks offe
red by other regions, while keeping addresses from being transfered out of the region.

Current text:

2.3.2.18.3.- Upon receiving an IPv4 address block transfer request, LACNIC shall verify that the organization transferri
ng the block is in fact the holder of said block according to LACNIC's records. The approved applicant and the organizat
ion transferring the resources must present before LACNIC a copy of the legal document supporting the transfer.

Proposed text:

2.3.2.18.3.(v.1)-.Upon receiving an IPv4 address block transfer request where the transferring organization is located i
n the LACNIC region, LACNIC shall verify that the organization transferring the block is in fact the holder of said bloc
k according to LACNIC's records. If the transferring organization is located in the region of an RIR with policies in fo
rce that allow address transfers to LACNIC, LACNIC shall accept the RIR's verification that the transferring organizatio
n is the holder of said block. The approved applicant and the organization transferring the resources must present befor
e LACNIC a copy of the legal document supporting the transfer.

Current text:

2.3.2.18.4.- LACNIC shall maintain a publicly accessible transfer log of all IPv4 address block transfers registered bef
ore LACNIC. Said log shall specify the date on which each transaction took place, the organization from which the transf
er originated, the receiving organization, and the block that was transferred.

Proposed text:

2.3.2.18.4 (v.1).- LACNIC shall maintain a publicly accessible transfer log of all IPv4 address block transfers register
ed before LACNIC. This log shall specify the date on which each transaction took place, the transferring organization, t
he origin RIR, the receiving organization and the block that was transferred.

Current text:

2.3.2.18.6.- A block that has been previously transferred may not be transferred again for a period of one year as of th
e transaction date registered in the transfer log. The same applies to its sub-blocks, i.e., blocks consisting of a subs
et of the IPv4 addresses contained in the block.

Proposed text:

2.3.2.18.6.(v.1)- A block previously transferred under this policy may not subsequently be transferred for a period of o
ne year as of the date on which the operation is recorded in the transfer log. The same applies to its sub-blocks, i.e.
blocks consisting of a subset of the IPv4 addresses contained in the block.

Because the LACNIC region has received less IPv4 assignments, there is little in terms of excess resource inventory. A p
olicy allowing “one-way interregional transfers to LACNIC” would allow access to a larger inventory of IPv4 blocks offe
red by other regions, while keeping addresses from being transfered out of the region.

Current text:

2.3.2.18.3.- Upon receiving an IPv4 address block transfer request, LACNIC shall verify that the organization transferri
ng the block is in fact the holder of said block according to LACNIC's records. The approved applicant and the organizat
ion transferring the resources must present before LACNIC a copy of the legal document supporting the transfer.

Proposed text:

2.3.2.18.3.(v.1)-.Upon receiving an IPv4 address block transfer request where the transferring organization is located i
n the LACNIC region, LACNIC shall verify that the organization transferring the block is in fact the holder of said bloc
k according to LACNIC's records. If the transferring organization is located in the region of an RIR with policies in fo
rce that allow address transfers to LACNIC, LACNIC shall accept the RIR's verification that the transferring organizatio
n is the holder of said block. The approved applicant and the organization transferring the resources must present befor
e LACNIC a copy of the legal document supporting the transfer.

Current text:

2.3.2.18.4.- LACNIC shall maintain a publicly accessible transfer log of all IPv4 address block transfers registered bef
ore LACNIC. Said log shall specify the date on which each transaction took place, the organization from which the transf
er originated, the receiving organization, and the block that was transferred.

Proposed text:

2.3.2.18.4 (v.1).- LACNIC shall maintain a publicly accessible transfer log of all IPv4 address block transfers register
ed before LACNIC. This log shall specify the date on which each transaction took place, the transferring organization, t
he origin RIR, the receiving organization and the block that was transferred.

Current text:

2.3.2.18.6.- A block that has been previously transferred may not be transferred again for a period of one year as of th
e transaction date registered in the transfer log. The same applies to its sub-blocks, i.e., blocks consisting of a subs
et of the IPv4 addresses contained in the block.

Proposed text:

2.3.2.18.6.(v.1)- A block previously transferred under this policy may not subsequently be transferred for a period of o
ne year as of the date on which the operation is recorded in the transfer log. The same applies to its sub-blocks, i.e.
blocks consisting of a subset of the IPv4 addresses contained in the block.

- ARIN requires reciprocity, so this policy would not apply to transfers originating in the ARIN region.

- APNIC requires a compatible policy and currently processes transfers with NIRs such as VNNIC and CNNIC which authorize
incoming transfers.

- Everything seems to indicate that RIPE would allow one-way transfers to LACNIC members.

ARIN requires reciprocity, so this policy would not apply to transfers originating in the ARIN region.

APNIC requires a compatible policy and currently processes transfers with NIRs such as VNNIC and CNNIC which authorize i
ncoming transfers.

Everything seems to indicate that RIPE would allow one-way transfers to LACNIC members.

In reference to an exchange with AFRINIC, when a member of RIPE was asked about his views on one-way transfer policies,
Sander Steffan replied the following: Without issuing an opinion on the current policy proposal, I can say it would be c
ompatible with RIPE transfer policies. Address space can be re-allocated to another resource holder who is a member of a
registry that allows transfers. If AFRINIC allows incoming transfers, RIPE allows outgoing transfers.

In reference to an exchange with AFRINIC, when a member of RIPE was asked about his views on one-way transfer policies,
Sander Steffan said the following: Without issuing an opinion on the current policy proposal, I can say it would be comp
atible with RIPE transfer policies. Address space can be re-allocated to another resource holder who is a member of a re
gistry that allows transfers. If AFRINIC allows incoming transfers, RIPE allows outgoing transfers.

Studying the IPv4 Transfer Market: Reported Transfers https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ioana_livadariu/studying-
the-ipv4-transfer-market

ARIN Reciprocity requirement:

http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2017-January/062351.html (Click on Next Message in Thread to read ARIN communi
ty responses)

RIPE statement on inbound transfers on AFRINIC mailing list:

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006323.html