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

Disclaimer: i'm not deeply interested in transfers, that's not what the 
org i work for usually does... :)

(please see inline)


On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Jim Reid wrote:

>> On 22 Jul 2019, at 14:26, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false dilemma here.
>
> I'm sorry Piotr, I strongly disagree. The idea that was being proposed imposes retroactive conditions on legacy address holders. Which is very wrong. Policies should never be imposed retroactively.

I also don't really like the idea/concept.

However, it may be argued that when a transfer happens, the "new owner" 
doesn't have the same rights than the legacy resource holder, because it 
didn't receive the space from the original source.

But even with that, i still think a new proposal "converting" the status 
is not something favourable to a legacy resource holder.

Plus, i still think the status shouldn't even be allowed to change... 
(but i know i'm most likely alone on that one...)



> If implemented, the suggested policy will discourage legacy holders 
> from co-operating with the NCC,

It has the same effect on coooperation with ARIN/AFRINIC/APNIC/LACNIC ?


> Which in turn encourages "creative" 
> solutions to get around that hypothetical problem and therefore bring 
> about new ways to undermine the integrity of the NCC database.

Well, looking at the other 4 regions' status on this topic, probably the 
most creative solution is to push the transfer through the RIPE NCC... 
:-))


Regards,
Carlos



> I fail to see what the false dichotomy is. Or could be.
>
>
>