[address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)

David, thanks for your comments.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, David Farmer wrote:

>> in the heated discussion about 2013-03 ("no need"), I think this proposal
>> might have escaped your attention.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:08:26PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:
>>> A proposed change to RIPE Policy Document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address
>>> Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region",
>>> is now available for discussion.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You can find the full proposal at:
>>>
>>>      https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05/
>> 
>> 
>> This is an amendment to the transfer policy which solves real-world
>> problems for real-world LIRs - namely: abandon the requirement that a
>> transferred block of addresses must be empty, because that conflicts
>> with real-world scenarios, like a customer of a given LIR opening
>> his own LIR later on, both parties agree to transfer the addresses
>> the customer uses to the new LIR (= the customer's LIR of the customer
>> using the addresses already), and the NCC then tells them "no, you
>> can't do that".
>> 
>> The proposal is in *discussion* phase, so if you want to discuss, now is
>> the time.  (If you just "+1" it, that's also a clear signal :-) ).
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Gert Doering,
>> 	APWG chair
>
> I support the intent of the proposal, there are situations where it seems 
> reasonable to allow transfers of blocks with end users in them, and the 
> current blanket exclusion prevents this.
>
> However, I also support the original intent of the language that would be 
> removed.  I believe the intent of the original language was to prevent an LIR 
> selling off a block that has active End Users in it, at least without notice 
> or consent, etc...
>
> For the example case given in the proposal, it seems that consent should be 
> readily obtainable.  So, would a better solution be to add "without consent 
> of the End User(s)" to the current text.  This provides flexibility without 
> abandoning the protection the current text provides to End Users.

In the rationale I used this expressions:

"... it should be possible to transfer a continuous block from one LIR 
into an allocation and correct assignments of the new LIR while preserving 
the assignments." - I wanted to make clear that the new LIR would of 
course inherit End-User assignments and also the responsibilities for 
them.

You think the End-Users should get involved into a planned transfer of 
an allocation to a new LIR? It might not be realistic to ask hundreds
of End-Users for permission to transfer an allocation. Is that what you 
were suggesting?

Thanks
Sascha

-- 
Sascha E. Pollok                      E-Mail: sp at iphh.net
Manager Network Design and Operations Tel: +49 (0)40 374919-10
IPHH Internet Port Hamburg GmbH       Fax: +49 (0)40 374919-29
Wendenstrasse 408                     AG Hamburg, HRB 76071
20537 Hamburg, Germany                CEO: Axel G. Kroeger