This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sat Jul 13 13:56:19 CEST 2019
Hi, On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 01:37:19PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > I keep thinking that ripe-682 (RIPE resource transfer policies), should have a provision (as it is the case in all the other RIRs), in order to "convert" the legacy resources to non-legacy, when they got transferred. What is it that you want to achieve with this? Legacy resources can be converted to PA today, if the holder wants that, but this is orthogonal to whether or not a transfer happened. > I think this is a benefit for the global community, because with that, we bring into the RIR system more and more legacy IPv4 resources, which increase the transparency and community control. Legacy resources that are documented in the RIPE database *are* transparently documented today. Those get updated in a transfer, even if still "legacy". For legacy resources that are transferred outside RIPE NCC control, there is no lever to force the holders to do anything. > In a presentation from ARIN for the 2016-2018 period it has been mention: > - Overall space managed by ARIN decreased by ~14 million IPv4 addresses, due to Inter-RIR transfers > - Overall ARIN issued space increased by ~30 million IPv4 addresses, due primarily to conversion of legacy space via in-region transfers > > Opinions? We're not ARIN :-) - we have our own set of "how to deal with legacy addresses and address holders" policies, and they seem to serve us reasonably well. So: what is the problem that you want to address? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer 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/20190713/bb1e7337/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]