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

* David Farmer

> 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.

+1

> 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.

I don't see how this "protection" works in practise?

If an LIR wants to get out of the internet registry business and sell
off its allocations, it can always just purge them of assignments first
(even with your requirement in place). The End Users probably won't be
very pleased about being kicked out on the street so to speak, but c'est
la vie...

Tore