[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:40, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Is this to be interpreted as:
> 
> a) the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry
> 
> or
> 
> b) the LIR has not registered any IPv4 address space transfer out of its
> registry?
> 
> Option b is enforceable but largely pointless.

Not really. Unless you assume that 100% of LIRs have evil intentions.

> Option a is unenforceable because if the LIR chooses not to register the
> transfer, then there is no way for the RIPE NCC to conclusively prove
> that a transfer has happened and thus to deny the new allocation.
>
> This proposal as it stands will put selective pressure on LIRs to implement
> hidden transfer agreements and then to tell lies to the RIPE NCC in order
> to justify getting more IP address space.  This is not good stewardship
> of resources.

If the transfer source does not register the transfer, the transfer
destination (the one that pays) may not agree - it requires much more
legal paperwork in order to ensure that ressources somehow "belong" to
the one that pays.
Pretty much like selling a company but not registering anywhere the sale
(ok, in that case the registration info may not be public).
Another thing, how do you define a "hidden transfer" ? Some LIRs do have
assignments from other LIRs that they announce in the global table with
their own AS. Those IPs still "belong" to the LIR having the superblock
even if the superblock is not announced.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs