[address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:53:29PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than
> the proposer :)

I'm trying to not side either way, but the poor quality of some of the
arguments is annoying me enough to try to counter them.

> > On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:33, Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
> [...]
> > (Regarding the DB accuracy, I think Sander has answered this upthread
> > in a way I find convincing: if trading for these /22s is limited, of
> > course someone who trades "under the desk" will not be able to update
> > the registry, so potentially someone else uses the /22 and can not document
> > that.  Would I buy a /22 that I can not legally transfer into my LIR?
> legally?

"according to the rules that govern transfers" - make it "formally" or
"contractually" or whatever word you like more.


> > No, because I'm all at the mercy of the seller - if he closes his LIR,
> > "my" /22 is gone.  So I'd go and find a unencumbed /22 on the market - and
> > in my book, this would mean "mission accomplished, trading discouraged")
> 
> If things would be so simple...
> 
> Look at what's happening in ARIN. Lots of transfers (some very large
> ones as well) are done by means of financial/contractual artifices
> (furures contracts and such) avoiding the needs based criteria from
> the policy. Millions of IPs seem to change hands but the transfer are
> not recorded in the registry.
> 
> While *you* would not trade a 'last allocated' block, it does not mean
> that these will not trade.

Well, in that case I can only say "I recommend this to all my competitors"
- it would be tremendously silly to buy a /22 that can not be registered
to my company, and that the NCC *will* request back (= no route objects,
no reverse DNS, no inetnums) if the seller's LIR is closed.  Someone
buying addresses on the market should understand the market they are 
operating in - and if not, they should hire a broker to make sure that they
will get value for their money.

[..]
> I also do not think it's ok to have a policy change the status of a
> resource 'in the middle of the game' and think that even if accepted,
> this proposal should cause a change of status only from the moment it
> is implemented.

Where was that argument when transfers were initially allowed?

Following this argument, we couldn't do any policy changes that affect
future actions for pre-existing allocations or assignments.  Funny that
we could do so in the past just fine.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/807c597c/attachment.sig>