[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Wed Sep 2 15:02:11 CEST 2015
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:37:22AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote: >To clarify here ... although all types of number resources can >be transferred.. ( AS, IPv4, IPv6 ) there are some specific >resources ( like v4 for IXP usage ) are not allowed to be >transferred and MUST be returned.. >https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649#61 > >So in itself it is a more specific statement in the intent of >the policy, this new policy isn't going to change the transfer >options if the current policy states that it must be returned.. OK, didn't actually know this restriction existed. >I also addressed this in the email of James. And it was also >discussed during the AS transfer policy in the room at the >AP-WG. The transfer policy time restriction is for scarce >resources .. ( like IPv4 and 16-bits ASN's.) and not for IPv6 or >32-bit ASn's. A holding period for ASN16 is a material change in assignment policy and should be in a separate proposal, not hidden in a (in itself valuable) transfer policy aggregation proposal. >Btw.. did you see that nr. 4.0 will also implement if a new >field in the transfer statistics ... > >- Whether it was a transfer or merger/acquisition > >As it will also make a slight change in the transfer >restrictions .. as it closes the 'loophole' to have transfers >now also restricted after M&A's and not only after allocation by >RIPE NCC or transfers. What is this supposed to mean? The 24-month timer resets if a resource is acquired by M&A? Pretty substantial change IMO. Again, this should be subject to a separate proposal. And perhaps a membership vote as it materially affects the M&A procedure. People, the RIPE community should not make policy like the US House of Representatives - by this I mean hiding your wish list in marginally related legislation in the hope that it will go unnoticed. This proposal is a much needed aggregation of scattered policy items and a laudable effort by the author. It is ill served by trying to make changes to policy at the same time. As a result, I will oppose 2015-04 until I am satisfied that there is no material change in policy contained within, and am looking forward to discuss such changes on their own merits. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]