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

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

(...)
>
> Leaving the inherent silliness of "owning" or "administering"
> integers aside:
>
> I own my car because "somebody, someday" told me (after money
> changing hands, of course) "this is yours". The same applies to
> the computer I'm writing this on. If you'd like to change this you're welcome 
> to try and take them
> off me and see how far you get ;)

Hi Sascha, All.

If someone tries to hijack your car or your computer, jurisdiction should 
be clear, and you will know *where* to present a report.

That, unfortunately has no paralell for IP addressing -- well, maybe 
except in the LACNIC region where they have WARP (Warning Advice and 
Reporting Point). I don't know how many people are aware about WARP's 
existence, i just found out about it quite recently :-)



>> However, pushing for a conversion from legacy to "RIR system" looks very 
>> delicate. Not sure that legally it can be forced (probably in some 
>> countries the regulator may be able to do something, but I wouldn't count 
>> on that). As for "do it for you own good", while this may not work today, 
>> some day everybody would better get into the RPKI bandwagon, at which point 
>> the RIRs would be in a strong position to "kindly" ask holders to convert 
>> the legacy resources to "RIR system". If the will id there, which is an 
>> entirely different issue.
>
> I don't think the RIRs should get into the business of extortion
> any more than into theft. Nothing good can conceivably come off
> that.


Afaik access to the certification service (RPKI) is voluntary and is 
already available for legacy holders that engage with the RIR system (see 
ripe-724, republished yesterday from ripe-674 and ripe-615).


Regards,
Carlos


> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>