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

Hi Carlos,

Not sure if the specific proposals bring value, I think we need to understand "the whys", anyway, I found:

LACNIC:
https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/556/1/lac-2009-04v3-propuesta-sp.pdf (sorry Spanish)

ARIN:
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2009_1.html

However, it doesn't mention legacy, so it should have modified afterwards, and I was unable to find it.

AFRINIC:
https://www.afrinic.net/policy/archive/ipv4-resources-transfer-within-the-afrinic-region-2

Same problem as in ARIN, it has been modified afterwards, but can't find it.

APNIC:
http://archive.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/docs/policy/addpol-prop-wilson-historical-transfer.doc
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-006/
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-050/


I'm going to check with the policy officers of each RIR.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 16/7/19 11:39, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de address-policy-wg at ripe.net> escribió:

    
    
    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
    >
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.