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

Hi,

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:51:06PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> 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? 

But this is *not* "affecting existing assignments or allocations", as
far as "holding this allocation and number your stuff with it" (which 
should be the primary usage for a block of IP addresses) goes.

It is affecting *new* activities that a LIR might or might not start
with their allocation in the future (namely: transfer it away).

(And indeed, back in the day, we did change the rules what a LIR might
do regarding assignments - from "do what you want" to "you have an
assignment window, and anything larger than that needs NCC approval" -
and then again, with a default AW of a /22.  Worked out, as it was the
same rules for everyone(!) - but as well, it only affected new activities
not "what you have stays where it is", so no assignment or allocations
became invalid due to it, and neither does this one)


[..]
> >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.

Actually while it was "according to the letter of the policy", I think
it will be hard to find someone to actually say "it was according to the
spirit of the last-/8 policy".  So I'd challenge the "reasonable" in
your statement.

> 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.

Well, so you say "it will not stop the bad guys from doing their stuff
in the next few months, so we should not do it at all, so they can keep
up the business for the next years", am I understanding this correctly?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150512/2715d1c6/attachment.sig>