<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1>Hi Elvis, <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I've read the proposal and I’m not sure I see what you are trying to solve here ... besides the obvious … <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Because if you look at the following URL: <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><a href="https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfers/inter-rir-transfers/inter-rir-ipv4-transfer-statistics">https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfers/inter-rir-transfers/inter-rir-ipv4-transfer-statistics</a> <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>There is a specific section for Inter-RIR transfers .. with a to RIPE and From RIPE tab.. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>And in the To tab, you will see the following (as an example.. ) <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>157.97.0.0/16 ARIN A&F Networks B.V. 17/03/2016<o:p></o:p>147.28.0.0/16 ARIN RGnet, LLC 16/03/2016<o:p></o:p>192.83.230.0/24 ARIN RGnet, LLC 16/03/2016<o:p></o:p>198.133.206.0/24 ARIN RGnet, LLC 16/03/2016<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>And these are all Legacy Prefixes inter-rir transfers done .. and published.. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>So if the RIPE NCC is already registering the prefixes as part of the Inter RIR transfers .. even before they are marked as a Legacy prefix.. in the RIPE DB .. <o:p></o:p>How will this policy make a difference ? <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>And the change in the transfer document that the RIPE NCC is currently still implementing .. it clearly states the following : <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><a href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#4-0-transfer-statistics">https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#4-0-transfer-statistics</a><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>4.0 Transfer Statistics<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>The RIPE NCC will publish a list of all transfers. This publication shall occur on a monthly basis or more frequently if the RIPE NCC so chooses.<o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>This list will contain information about approved changes. The following information will be published:<o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>The name of the offering party<o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>The resource originally held by the offering party<o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>The name(s) of the receiving party or parties<o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Each subdivided prefix (each partial block derived from that original block) or resource received<o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>The date each resource was transferred<o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Whether it was a transfer according to this policy or a transfer due to changes to an organisation's business structure (such as a merger or acquisition)<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>And I like to put the emphasis on : <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>The RIPE NCC will publish a list of all transfers.<o:p></o:p>And <o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Whether it was a transfer according to this policy or a transfer due to changes to an organisation's business structure (such as a merger or acquisition)<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>This paragraph 4 isn’t a part of the paragraph 3.. (3.0 Inter-RIR Transfers ) … or the limitations in paragraph 2 (2.0 Transfers within the RIPE NCC Service Region) <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>And there is also no difference between RIPE PA or Legacy space in that section … <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>So how I read (and wrote) the policy is that the Transfer statistics should be published on all transfers. <o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>A transfer can be a change of resources from company name A to company name B .. (via the M&A process) <o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Or via the actual Transfer procedure … <o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Or a company name change .. ( company A is now known as company B, but same company, same owners etc. ) This is the least interesting one imho. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>There is no limitation for legacy resources .. and it doesn’t affect their legacy status .. under this policy. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>There is a difference between the RIPE DB and the RIPE registry.. if you want to update the DB, the LRH can do that themselves.. <o:p></o:p>But if the LRH wants to update the registry (the RIPE NCC internal system), they should provide the proper documentation. And that is already in place in procedures.. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>So the actual change that you are asking is : <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>In the Services to Legacy Resource Holder policy (<a href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639">https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639</a>) .. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Have Legacy Holders to agree to sign a document, that the RIPE NCC already has in the operational procedure. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>In which case the name of the policy is incorrect .. as it isn’t about Inter-RIR legacy updates .. or transfers .. but about the Services to LRH’s .. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Perhaps we should see first what the RIPE NCC will implement with the 2015-04 … before we go look into additional policy … <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Regards,<o:p></o:p>Erik Bais <o:p></o:p>A2B Internet <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: dinsdag 25 april 2017 14:40 Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: [address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)<o:p> </o:p>Dear colleagues,<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-01, "Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates" is now available for discussion.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The goal of this proposal is to require the RIPE NCC to publish all changes to the holdership of legacy resources in the existing transfer statistics.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>You can find the full proposal at:<o:p></o:p><a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-01">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-01</a><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>> before 24 May 2017.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Regards,<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Marco Schmidt<o:p></o:p>Policy Development Officer<o:p></o:p>RIPE NCC <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Sent via RIPE Forum -- <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum">https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum</a><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p></div></body></html>