[address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha E. Pollok
sp at iphh.net
Fri Aug 16 23:13:34 CEST 2013
David, thanks for your comments. On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, David Farmer wrote: >> in the heated discussion about 2013-03 ("no need"), I think this proposal >> might have escaped your attention. >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:08:26PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote: >>> A proposed change to RIPE Policy Document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address >>> Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", >>> is now available for discussion. >>> >>> >>> You can find the full proposal at: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05/ >> >> >> This is an amendment to the transfer policy which solves real-world >> problems for real-world LIRs - namely: abandon the requirement that a >> transferred block of addresses must be empty, because that conflicts >> with real-world scenarios, like a customer of a given LIR opening >> his own LIR later on, both parties agree to transfer the addresses >> the customer uses to the new LIR (= the customer's LIR of the customer >> using the addresses already), and the NCC then tells them "no, you >> can't do that". >> >> The proposal is in *discussion* phase, so if you want to discuss, now is >> the time. (If you just "+1" it, that's also a clear signal :-) ). >> >> regards, >> >> Gert Doering, >> APWG chair > > I support the intent of the proposal, there are situations where it seems > reasonable to allow transfers of blocks with end users in them, and the > current blanket exclusion prevents this. > > However, I also support the original intent of the language that would be > removed. I believe the intent of the original language was to prevent an LIR > selling off a block that has active End Users in it, at least without notice > or consent, etc... > > For the example case given in the proposal, it seems that consent should be > readily obtainable. So, would a better solution be to add "without consent > of the End User(s)" to the current text. This provides flexibility without > abandoning the protection the current text provides to End Users. In the rationale I used this expressions: "... it should be possible to transfer a continuous block from one LIR into an allocation and correct assignments of the new LIR while preserving the assignments." - I wanted to make clear that the new LIR would of course inherit End-User assignments and also the responsibilities for them. You think the End-Users should get involved into a planned transfer of an allocation to a new LIR? It might not be realistic to ask hundreds of End-Users for permission to transfer an allocation. Is that what you were suggesting? Thanks Sascha -- Sascha E. Pollok E-Mail: sp at iphh.net Manager Network Design and Operations Tel: +49 (0)40 374919-10 IPHH Internet Port Hamburg GmbH Fax: +49 (0)40 374919-29 Wendenstrasse 408 AG Hamburg, HRB 76071 20537 Hamburg, Germany CEO: Axel G. Kroeger
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]