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

Hi Jordi, All,


I was doing some googling and easily found the references on 
ARIN/LACNIC/AFRINIC websites...

====
https://www.lacnic.net/1022/2/lacnic/legacy-resources

"Transferred legacy resources will no longer be considered as such"

====
https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/legacy/services/

"When legacy number resources are transferred to another organization
through a specified transfer (NRPM 8.3 and 8.4), the recipient organization
is required to sign an RSA/LRSA, and the resources being transferred will
not retain their legacy status."

====
https://afrinic.net/resources/transfers

"Applicable to Transfer Recipient Transferred IPv4 legacy resources will 
no longer be regarded as legacy resources."

====


However, regarding APNIC, from what i read on

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#8.3.-Transfer-of-Historical-Internet-resources

it is not 100% clear to me that the transferred blocks lose their 
legacy/historical status.


Can you list which policy proposals within each RIR that resulted in the 
above...?
...so we may have some clue about the timeline of such changes -- which 
may have been passed under the legacy holders radar...

Additionally, maybe someone involved with transfers on a daily basis can 
comment if a block with legacy status has less/equal/more value than 
non-legacy blocks???


Cheers,
Carlos





On Tue, 16 Jul 2019, Michiel Klaver via address-policy-wg wrote:

> Hi Jordi,
>
> Maybe you can provide any documentation available from the other RIRs about 
> their rationale why they implemented this kind of policy? Maybe they have 
> some strong arguments we are missing here?
>
>
> Gert Doering wrote at 2019-07-16 10:46:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
>> address-policy-wg wrote:
>>> Again, please consider, if it is good that we are the only RIR not doing 
>>> so. I don't think that's good.
>> 
>> If this is the main argument ("I changed this in all the other RIRs,
>> and now *you* are the only ones stubbornly refusing to follow my
>> all-the-others-are-doing-this argument") - it's a somewhat weak one.
>> 
>> You have failed to bring forward any reason for changing things, except
>>
>>  "it is unfair that there is a difference"
>> 
>> (without detailing what exactly the unfairness would be, who would
>> be disadvantaged by this, exactly, and why they would be affected
>> positively by this proposal) - and
>>
>>  "all the other RIRs have changed this!"
>> 
>> which is both not very compelling.
>> 
>> 
>> I could also not see anyone speak up in a supportive way, so I'd consider
>> this "sufficiently discussed, and no support to go for a formal proposal".
>> 
>> Gert Doering
>>         -- APWG chair
>