[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders

On 29/08/2012 11:08, Nigel Titley wrote:
> This actually raises an interesting issue. Are there any circumstances in
> which RIPE policy would apply to legacy space? Could, for example, the
> AP-WG unilaterally propose a policy that annexed legacy space? I've heard
> this suggested several times. And of course, if RIPE policy doesn't apply
> to legacy space, why are the legacy holders raising a proposal at all?

RIPE policies do not apply to ERX address space - there is no real argument
about this.

However, we have an immediate operational problem caused by the fact that
the RIPE NCC has withdrawn the ability for ERX holders to make updates to
their address blocks.  We got here because some people decided to pass the
can from ddn / internic / arin to the RIPE NCC due to geographical
considerations.  Now that the RIPE NCC has been landed with this mess, they
felt that there is a requirement to do something about it rather than let
it sit there and fester due to hijacking / illegal transfers.  I can see a
lot of operational and legal reasons that the NCC blocked updates to the
space, even though they were given no direct mandate to do this from the
RIPE community.

So the issue is really a question of balancing the rights and
responsibilities of both the RIPE NCC and the ERX holders.  This is why I
asked last week if there was an agreement in place between the InterNIC and
the RIPE NCC for handling the ERX transfers - if there was a formal
agreement in place, then it needs to be given serious consideration when
the RIPE community forms a new policy for the RIPE NCC which can be applied
to the address space, because the terms of that agreement may still be
binding on the RIPE NCC.  If there was no agreement in place, then more
options are open.

Basing a policy on "annexing legacy space" is a red herring.  Tut, tut,
naughty Nigel.

What isn't a red herring is the notion of creating a policy which accepts
and understands the requirement of a quid pro quo between the ERX holders
and the RIPE NCC.  This principal is notably absent in the pre-publication
proposal that Niall emailed to the list a couple of days ago, and without
prejudice to that document, it is a principal which I suspect would
radically change the conclusions of any such proposal.

Nick