[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg

> I think my previus email just explained it.

Not really...
> The motivation is my personal view that we have a problem (as a community) by not bringing into the system the legacy resources.

I understand that you have that view. What I fail to understand is *why* you have that view.

It might be self-evident to you how this is problematic. It is not to me.

> I'm alone with that view? I don't know, and that's why I'm asking.

I'm a firm believer of the «if it ain't broke, don't fix it» approach, and I am yet to be convinced that the current policy is indeed «broke».

Do the parties directly impacted by this policy in question, i.e., the legacy resource holders themselves (or would-be recipients of legacy resource transfers), share your view that there is a problem here that needs fixing?

(It is unclear to me whether or not you represent such a directly impacted party yourself.)

> What is clear to me is that, according to existing policies, I share this view with 4/5 of the RIR communities.
> 
> What is the effect of that? Simple, an unbalance of transfers among regions, because if someone for whatever reason want to get resources and keep them non-legacy, can just come to RIPE for that. This is good for RIPE? I don't think so, we could keep growing the non-legacy resources, while other regions get "cleaned".

How is it *bad* for the RIPE community, though?

You seem to imply that legacy space is «dirty» and in need of «cleaning» but offer no explanation why.

I understand that RPKI is not available for legacy resources in some other regions. Providing legacy holders with the option of moving their resources into the RIPE region might therefore be a net benefit for the Internet community at large (which obviously includes the RIPE community), as it might contribute to better routing security.

Tore