LACNIC · RIR Watchdog
Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers
Start here for the proposal-by-proposal record: what changed, why it mattered, who argued for what, how positions evolved, what was decided, and where the evidence still has gaps.
Source facts
- Policy ID
- LAC-2012-8
- RIR
- LACNIC
- Official status
- Abandoned
- Normalized status
- Abandoned
- Introduced
- Aug 15, 2014
- Last source update
- Oct 23, 2026
- Coverage
- Partial
Who actually shaped the debate?
Policy evolution
Authority for validating a foreign recipient's IPv4 address need · The foreign recipient's need justification is changed from review before LACNIC to review before the RIR receiving the address space, with justification submitted to that recipient's own RIR.
Source facts −
• In order for a foreign organization to qualify for receiving a transfer, it must first go through the process of justifying its IPv4 address needs before LACNIC. In other words, the foreign entity must justify before LACNIC the initial/additional allocation/assignment.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
• In order for a foreign entity to qualify for receiving a transfer, it must first go through the process of justifying its IPv4 address needs before the RIR receiving the address space. In other words, the foreign entity must justify before its RIR the initial/additional allocation/assignment. If the receiving RIR approves the transfer, LACNIC shall proceed to transfer custody of the address space to that RIR.Source facts ↗
Receiving-RIR approval and transfer of custody · The new text adds that, if the receiving RIR approves the transfer, LACNIC will transfer custody of the address space to that RIR.
Source facts −
• In order for a foreign organization to qualify for receiving a transfer, it must first go through the process of justifying its IPv4 address needs before LACNIC. In other words, the foreign entity must justify before LACNIC the initial/additional allocation/assignment.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
• In order for a foreign entity to qualify for receiving a transfer, it must first go through the process of justifying its IPv4 address needs before the RIR receiving the address space. In other words, the foreign entity must justify before its RIR the initial/additional allocation/assignment. If the receiving RIR approves the transfer, LACNIC shall proceed to transfer custody of the address space to that RIR.Source facts ↗
One-year restriction on outbound transfers of recently issued resources · The old text barred transfers of blocks and sub-blocks from initial or additional allocations or assignments for one year from allocation or assignment. The new text instead states that IPv4 resources assigned or allocated by LACNIC during the past year cannot be transferred to a foreign RIR, without expressly mentioning sub-blocks or initial/additional issuance.
Source facts −
• Blocks and sub-blocks from initial or additional allocations or assignments received from LACNIC can not be transferred for a period of one year as of their date of allocation or assignment.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
• IPv4 resources assigned/allocated by LACNIC during the past year can not be transferred to a foreign RIR.Source facts ↗
Loss of legacy status for inbound transferred resources · The old text specified that inbound legacy resources cease to be legacy before completion of the transfer. The new text removes that timing qualifier and states only that transferred legacy resources cease to be considered legacy.
Source facts −
• Transferred legacy resources shall no longer be considered as such before completing the transfer; therefore, LACNIC shall receive the block as a non-legacy block.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
• Transferred legacy resources shall no longer be considered as such; therefore, LACNIC shall receive the block as a non-legacy block.Source facts ↗
Effective-date trigger for the inter-RIR transfer section · The new version adds a condition delaying operation of the section until LACNIC or one of its NIRs is first unable to satisfy an IPv4 allocation or assignment because resources are unavailable; the old version proceeds directly from the Current text heading to the foreign-RIR definitions without this trigger.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Debate timeline
Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] New Proposal / Nueva Propuesta / Nova Proposta - LAC-2012-08
6 Discussion messages · 4 Entities
Source facts ↗Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] LAC-2012-08 - Nueva versión (2) / Nova versão (2) / New version (2)
2 Discussion messages · 2 Entities
Source facts ↗Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] LAC-2012-08 - Nueva versión (3) / Nova versão (3) / New version (3)
12 Discussion messages · 10 Entities
Source facts ↗
Entities
- Max Larson Henry · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages4First activityJul 24, 2012Last activityNov 22, 2013First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies3
- Discussion messages2First activityJul 24, 2012Last activityAug 22, 2012First explicit stanceSupport with changesLatest explicit stanceSupportStance changes1Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0Freshness: Stale · Last refresh: · The latest refresh failed. The last successful result is shown.
Identity verified: Oct 13, 2026
Internap · Historical Scott Leibrand, Internap
www.arin.netARIN · Historical Scott Leibrand January 2008 - December 2016
www.arin.netVerified public profiles
- Discussion messages
- 2
- First activity
- Jul 24, 2012
- Last activity
- Aug 22, 2012
- First explicit stance
- Support with changes
- Latest explicit stance
- Support
- Stance changes
- 1
- Viewpoint consistency
- Consistent
- Other policies
- 0
First explicit stance: Support with changes → Latest explicit stance: Support · Stance changes: 1
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
The July post accepts the need for inter-RIR transfers while questioning dual-registry justification and enforcement after a transfer. The August post explicitly supports the revised proposal and its safeguards. The stated change is therefore compatible with the earlier reservations.
Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers
Assessment: Consistent · The July post accepts the need for inter-RIR transfers while questioning dual-registry justification and enforcement after a transfer. The August post explicitly supports the revised proposal and its safeguards. The stated change is therefore compatible with the earlier reservations.
Conditions: Only the two supplied posts are compared; this does not verify which textual changes resolved each concern or establish final policy adoption.
I think it's an important issue that needs to be discussed, and I agree that some sort of Inter-RIR transfer policy is necessary.
As such, I support this proposal.
- Jul 24, 2012 · Support with changes
[LACNIC/Politicas] New Proposal / Nueva Propuesta / Nova Proposta - LAC-2012-08
Thanks for submitting this proposal. I think it's an important issue that … needs to be discussed, and I agree that some sort of Inter-RIR transfer … policy is necessary. A few questions and comments below. … In order for a foreign organization to qualify for receiving a transfer, it … So is your intent that the recipient of a transfer (the "foreign … organization") would need to justify its IPv4 address needs to both its own … RIR and to LACNIC? It's worth noting that the final policy in both APNIC … and ARIN only requires the "foreign organization" to qualify for the space … under the rules of the "foreign RIR". I think it would be possible to … require both, but it does introduce some additional complexity, as the … different RIRs have slightly different policies and procedures. … Blocks and sub-blocks from initial or additional allocations or … How would this be enforced? When discussing the inter-RIR policy in the … ARIN region we considered a similar clause, but ultimately removed it … because enforcing it would require that ARIN policy continue to apply to … blocks that have been transferred to another RIR. … Gracias por la presentaci?n de esta propuesta. Creo que es una cuesti?n … importante que necesita ser discutido, y estoy de acuerdo que alg?n tipo de … pol?tica de transferencia Inter-RIR es necesario. Algunas preguntas y … Para que una entidad for?nea pueda ser el destinatario de una … As? que es su intenci?n de que el destinatario de una transferencia (la … "organizaci?n extranjera") tendr?a que justificar sus necesidades de … direcciones IPv4 a los RIR tanto por su propia y LACNIC? Vale la pena … se?alar que la pol?tica final tanto en APNIC y ARIN s?lo requiere de la … "organizaci?n extranjera" para calificar para el espacio bajo las reglas … del "RIR extranjero". Creo que ser?a posible exigir a los dos, pero s? … introduce cierta complejidad adicional, ya que los RIR tienen pol?ticas y … procedimientos ligeramente diferentes. … Los bloques y sus sub-bloques, provenientes de distribuciones o … ?C?mo podr?a esto ser ejecutada? Cuando se habla de la pol?tica entre los … RIR en la regi?n de ARIN se consider? una cl?usula similar, pero en ?ltima … instancia que se elimine, porque se requerir?a la aplicaci?n de esa … pol?tica de ARIN seguir? siendo aplicable a los bloques que han sido … transferidos a otro RIR.
Source facts ↗ - Aug 22, 2012 · Support
[LACNIC/Politicas] LAC-2012-08 - Nueva versión (2) / Nova versão (2) / New version (2)
Thanks for making these revisions. I believe inter-RIR transfers will be … necessary once the RIR free pools are exhausted, and I believe this … proposal does a good job of allowing inter-RIR transfers while maintaining … necessary protections against abuse of the policy. As such, I support this … proposal. … Gracias por hacer que estas revisiones. Creo que entre los transferencias … entre-RIR ser? necesario una vez que las agrupaciones libres RIR se han … agotado, y creo que esta propuesta hace un buen trabajo de permitir las … transferencias inter-RIR, manteniendo las protecciones necesarias contra … los abusos de la pol?tica. Por lo tanto, apoyo esta propuesta.
Source facts ↗
Per-policy stance timelines:LAC-2012-8 · Support · ConsistentTotal policy messages: 16
- Discussion messages2First activityJul 25, 2012Last activityJul 30, 2012First explicit stanceSupport with changesLatest explicit stanceSupport with changesStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies1
- Discussion messages2First activityApr 30, 2013Last activityApr 30, 2013First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0
- Discussion messages2First activityApr 30, 2013Last activityApr 30, 2013First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies3
- Discussion messages2First activityJul 25, 2012Last activityJul 30, 2012First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies0
- Gianina Pensky · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activitySep 3, 2014Last activitySep 3, 2014First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies24
- Jesus Martinez · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityApr 30, 2013Last activityApr 30, 2013First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies0
- Discussion messages1First activityApr 24, 2013Last activityApr 24, 2013First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies4
- Discussion messages1First activityApr 25, 2013Last activityApr 25, 2013First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies3
- Discussion messages1First activityApr 30, 2013Last activityApr 30, 2013First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies25
- Azael Fernandez Alcantara · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityApr 30, 2013Last activityApr 30, 2013First explicit stanceSupportLatest explicit stanceSupportStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies0
- Discussion messages1First activityApr 23, 2013Last activityApr 23, 2013First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies27
- Sofía Silva Berenguer · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityAug 17, 2012Last activityAug 17, 2012First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies1
- Discussion messages1First activityApr 30, 2013Last activityApr 30, 2013First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies3
- Juan Alejo 2 · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages0First activityUnknownLast activityUnknownFirst explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies0
Sources and coverage
Official policy sources
Public discussion archives
- lacnic-politicas
- Earliest captured
- Oct 21, 1999
- Latest captured
- Oct 21, 2026
- Last refresh
- Aug 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 2,559
- Known gaps
- 28
- www.lacnic.net
- lacnic-anuncios
- Earliest captured
- Mar 15, 2002
- Latest captured
- Oct 16, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 23, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 1,583
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-ietf-lac
- Earliest captured
- May 30, 2013
- Latest captured
- Dec 30, 2015
- Last refresh
- Oct 23, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 1,133
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-infofrida
- Earliest captured
- Aug 14, 2006
- Latest captured
- Sep 13, 2011
- Last refresh
- Oct 23, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 292
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-iot
- Earliest captured
- Oct 6, 2015
- Latest captured
- Jul 11, 2017
- Last refresh
- Oct 23, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 373
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-lacnog
- Earliest captured
- Aug 1, 2026
- Latest captured
- Oct 16, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 23, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 7,641
- Known gaps
- 4
- lacnic-lactf
- Earliest captured
- Apr 13, 2004
- Latest captured
- Dec 30, 2013
- Last refresh
- Oct 23, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 5,257
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-seguridad
- Earliest captured
- Jan 26, 2006
- Latest captured
- Dec 28, 2007
- Last refresh
- Oct 23, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 1,356
- Known gaps
- 0
Coverage
Partial
Earliest captured: Oct 21, 1999
Latest captured: Oct 23, 2026
Freshness
Known gaps
- politicas.lacnic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- www.lacnic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- lacnic-politicas: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- www.lacnic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- lacnic-anuncios: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- lacnic-ietf-lac: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- lacnic-infofrida: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- lacnic-iot: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- lacnic-lacnog: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- lacnic-lactf: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- lacnic-seguridad: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
