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

I can comment on the ARIN case. At the time we fully intended that legacy holders (and their legal successors) should continue to be able to use the address space they got pre-ARIN under the same terms under which they were assigned it. However, there was originally no provision for legacy address holders to be able to transfer space to unrelated parties. When we added policy to allow specified transfers, we (the ARIN community) agreed that legacy holders should be able to sell and transfer their legacy holdings, but that the recipient of the space would receive it under RSA, on equal footing with anyone else receiving new address space from ARIN. 

Scott

> On Jul 17, 2019, at 11:19 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Michiel,
> 
> I think the email from Mike (yesterday) responded to this together with my previous links to each RIR. Anyway, I've contacted to all the RIR policy officers, and even if not all them have responded yet with new information, this is a summary of the situation.
> 
> 1) In ARIN, they ask for signing the RSA. This is the literal response I got from them:
> 
> ARIN Policy 2009-1 does indeed require specified transfer resources to “receive” the resources under RSA. This policy was implemented in June 2009 and that version of the NRPM may be viewed at https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/archive/nrpm_20090601.pdf.
> 
> Subsequent policy changes impacted NRPM section 8.3, and went on to add 8.4 and 8.5, clarifying that the requirement applies to both intra- and inter-RIR transfers with ARIN recipients.
> 
> The Inter-RIR language specifically came about via ARIN Policy 2012-1 (https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2012_1.html), which was implemented in July 2012 (https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/archive/nrpm_20120731.pdf).
> 
> Since that time, other changes have occurred within Section 8, but none to my knowledge have impacted the requirement that recipients must “receive” the resources under RSA.
> 
> 2) AFRINIC. There was a wrong link in their web page when I looked at this and provided the link here. After I checked that and observed the mismatch, they corrected it. So the correct link to the proposal is:
> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/archive/ipv4-resources-transfer-within-the-afrinic-region-v3
> 
> 3) LACNIC and APNIC, as explained in previous email.
> 
> Even if I've asked them for explicit arguments when the discussion of each proposal was carried out I didn't get those responses, so again I think Mike email has the clearest view. Alternatively, there will be a chance if we investigate the mail archive discussion for each policy proposal in each RIR.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 16/7/19 11:05, "Michiel Klaver" <michiel at klaver.it> escribió:
> 
>    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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>