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

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:36:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>Now, people do get resources with certain assumptions(!) of what they
>might want to do with them in the future, or what they *can* do with them
>in the future.  Like, "I have this /25 PI space, I can route this on
>the Internet!".  We do not make guarantees that people's assumptions hold

That is what scares me about this. If there is a policy
passed that restricts all end-user assignments to max. /29
and it is implemented affecting existing assignments, I am (and
all other LIRs in the region are) to disconnect and re-number all my 
customers? 
I believe a LIR should have a reasonable assumption of continuity
when dealing with a monopoly provider.

>If changing policy to require a holding time breaks the assumption
>"I can transfer away this block right away" - well, I think this is
>fully intentional, no?

It breaks assumptions that were perfectly reasonable a year ago.
Also, I'm pretty sure those who would abuse a loophole are
following this debate and will have their transfers well sorted
before the implementation date (if they have any sense). Implementing
this policy for existing allocations will probably only affect a
small number of LIRs who are acting in good faith.
existing allocations will only affect 

rgds,
Sascha Luck