[address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)

Hi Wilfried,

> How to deal with moving address space from a PI assignment to a
> different party?
> 
> Well, I can see 2 *substantially* different scenarios:
> 
> 1) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *all of
>    it* any longer (and wants to get money from an interested party,
>    but that's a side issue).
> 
> 2) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *any* of
>    the addresses any longer and wants to transfer the full block, in
>    one chunk or in smaller pieces.
> 
> Nr. 1 is pretty easy, and possible already or really soon now:
> convert the PI block to PA, thus become an LIR, and proceed according
> to the rules.
> 
> Nr. 2 is more tricky.

Actually, I don't believe it is - your procedure #1 will work just as
well for case #2 as it would for case #1. That this works is stated
fairly clearly on the NCC's web site:

http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa

So PI transfers are already possible, following this procedure:

1) The current PI holder signs up as a member and pays the first
invoice. In 2014, this would cost somewhere between €2437.50 and €3750
depending on in which quartal it happens.
2) The PI block (or parts of it) is converted to PA.
3) The new PA block is transferred to another NCC member under ripe-606
section 5.5.
[...]
6) Finally, original PI holder may optionally close his LIR to avoid any
further membership fees. He'd then also have to move any remaining parts
of his PI assignment into a sponsoring relationship with another LIR.

What it boils down to is that we are levying a transaction fee for
non-members. That might be perfectly OK in itself (APNIC does too,
FWIW), but we're doing it in a really awkward and roundabout way.

One benefit is that once a PI block has become PA, there is no going
back, and we've ensured that all its future holders will all be members
that will be participating equally in the cost-sharing model.

However, there is a possible disadvantage too - by forcing the original
PI holder to become a (temporary) member in the first place, we're
almost inviting him to take advantage of that fact by adding the
following steps to the above procedure:

4) The original PI holder requests a /22 from the «last /8» pool.
5) The original PI holder transfers that /22 to another NCC member under
ripe-606 section 5.5.

Now, assuming that the hear-say about the market value of €10/address is
anywhere near correct, step #5 would net him around ~€10.240. That is
almost three times the worst case «transaction fee» from step #1. Oops!
So we don't really have a functioning «fee» that would positively fund
the cost-sharing model, but an invitation to make a quick extra buck at
the community's expense.

> Now, as soon as the original criteria are no longer in place, the
> resource MUST be returned. A PI holder offering the *full block* to
> an interested party (for money or for free) obviously matches that
> provision. The resource needs to get returned to the pool.

I don't think you can support this claim with actual policy provisions.
What policy says, is that an such an assignment is «no longer valid». It
does *not* say what should happen to invalid assignments, but one
obvious way to deal with it is to fix whatever is making it invalid, so
that it no longer is. There are several other things that might make an
assignment invalid too, and this page talks about how they should be
fixed, not how they should be reclaimed:

http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/number-resources/invalid-assignments

In this specific case, I'd say that converting PI to PA is a perfectly
logical way of correcting a PI assignment that has been made invalid due
to a criteria change. The PI holder could for example have started an
ISP service and assigned PI blocks to his end users, which is invalid
usage for PI, but it is exactly what PA is intended for.

Tore