[address-policy-wg] clarification on RIPE Resource Transfer Policies (ripe-682) Section 2.0

Hi,

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 02:10:06PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-ripe-ncc-service-region
> 
> I saw this restriction:
> 
> """
> Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member.
> Provider Independent resources may be transferred to:
> 
>     * A RIPE NCC member; or
>     * An entity that has a contractual relationship with a RIPE NCC member
>       in accordance with the RIPE Policy,
> """
> 
> Note the difference between Allocated (PA) and Provider Independent (PI).
> 
> Is this split intentional?  Would a proposal to unify both under the
> existing PI rules be welcome?

This split is intentional - a PA holder can only be a LIR, while a PI
can be held by a LIR or by a non-LIR end user, provided they have a
contractual relationship with a LIR.

So unless we change the whole model of "who can hold which address space"
(and abandon the PA/PI distinction while at it) the transfer policy 
document just reflects what address policy always required for the
initial holder of a given "bag of numbers".

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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170523/5e435769/attachment.sig>