[address-policy-wg] Seen this?: (Was: IP Broker for -1.-1.-1.-1)

Hi Ondřej,

> I see nothing about temporary transfers in 5.5 of IPv5 policy.

It's in the third paragraph: 'Re-allocation must be reflected in the RIPE Database. This re-allocation may be on either a permanent or non-permanent basis.'

> The leases would best fit under "sub-allocations", but that's just for downstream network operators (and I read that as BGP downstreams, not a random entity on the net).

That is exactly what Alexey Ivanov (LeaderTelecom) is discussing on this very list.

> Also the transfers has to be approved by RIPE NCC, so you cannot ensure it's "temporary", because you can be denied the transfer-back.

No, handing back the addresses to the original holder is not a separate transfer. It's just the end of the original transfer.

> Correct me if I read the policy in a wrong way.

I hope I have :-)

> True, that was just my thinking about being a good "netizen", but it's not covered in the policy.
> 
> Anyway I still think the leases are not in the line with the current policy.


Using the label 'lease' might be a but confusing, but if they use the transfer policy with a temporary transfer it does fit. It would be helpful to have consistent naming for these things though.

Met vriendelijke groet,
Sander Steffann