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

On 29/08/2012 12:09, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 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 the RIPE NCC has withdrawn the ability for ERX holders to make updates to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.
Can we get this straight please. The RIPE NCC has *not* withdrawn 
ability for ERX holders to make updates to their address block, neither 
has it withdrawn reverse DNS service. Letters to that effect were sent 
to a number of legacy holders but were issued in error due to a 
miscommunication within the RIPE NCC and were withdrawn. If anyone still 
has no access to their database records then this is an operational 
error and it should be reported through the usual channels.

We now have the opportunity to get this whole thing straightened out, 
with a proper mandate from the community. That is what this whole 
proposal is about.

>
> 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.
I'll be surprised if there was no agreement. Can someone from the RIPE 
NCC comment?
>
> Basing a policy on "annexing legacy space" is a red herring.  Tut, tut,
> naughty Nigel.
As I said that was a little mischievious, but it has led to considerable 
clarification of what is being done here.
> 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.
>
I agree fully with this and I hope that this clarification will emerge 
during the discussion phase of the proposal.

Nigel