[address-policy-wg] Transfer policy limits

* Sander Steffann

>> someone has a critical, very hard and slow to move (think dns or 
>> something), service in the middle of a chunk of address space they 
>> sell.  the sales agreement does something kinky to make that
>> service stay up.
>> 
>> this is not a merger.
> 
> Ah, then I misunderstood your scenario. Sorry. In the case you
> describe the current RIPE transfer policy does not allow the transfer
> to happen.

Current policy says about assignments: «In general, addresses can be
replaced on a one-to-one basis. Valid assignments can be replaced with
the same number of addresses if the original assignment criteria are
still met.»

The way I see it, this opens up for the new LIR (the alloc buyer) to
inherit the documentation relating to the assignment from the old LIR
(the seller), and on that basis make a new assignment that happens to
consist of the exact same addresses as before.

> Changing the subject...
> 
> Question to the WG: I can see the need for something like this (and
> thinking of it: many other cases as well) to be allowed. The current
> limits on the transfer policy were set in a time when transfers were
> not well understood, and limits were placed to avoid abuse of the
> policy (hoarding, speculation etc). Is it now time to reconsider
> those limits we placed years ago?

When 2012-09^w2013-02^w2013-03 eventually enters the discussion phase
you'll probably get answers to at least some of those questions.. ;-)

-- 
Tore Anderson