[address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi Garry,

all your points are totally right. So ... when will we start writing
that much stricter proposal ... I'd be happy to assist!

But: announcement-validation is not a valid mechanism ... for that you'd
need only one real internet connected router and a VM running e.g. bird,
which announces your prefixes.

I remember about 10 years ago, when I was trying to request a /17 for a
hoster in US at Arin, we were forced to provide a list with full
customer contact-data for all our IPs assigned ... and they really
contacted customers of us asking if they were running hosts in our
address-space ... So if NCC does not have to handle all this transfer
documentation anymore, LIR openers and closures, they'd have enough time
to really validate requirement for transfer.

As already written in earlier mails ... if the hurdle of reasoning why a
transfer is high enough, the market will break ... and honestly I am
sure that this would fasten up V6 deployment enormously!

BR Jens
- Certified to be flame-resistant -


On 11.06.2015 14:57, Garry Glendown wrote:
> 
> From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind:
> 
> * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official
> papers/registration information)
> * is there actually any other justifiable reason?
> 
> Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not
> necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even
> weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument)
> 
> * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact
> customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced)
> * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how
> could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an
> announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a
> certain amount of time (3 months?)
> 
> Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR)
> are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for
> the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus
> allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met.
> 
> Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3
> months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be
> extended by 1 year
> 
> *putting on flame-resistant armor*
> 
> -garry
> 
> 
> !DSPAM:637,557986be102931108720806!
> 


-- 
Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team
Jens Ott

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b
53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.:  +49 2224 969500
Fax:   +49 2224 97691059
Email: jo at opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989