[address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?

Well said!

Regards,
Radu Gheorghiu

On 06/20/2016 01:53 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> Hi Gert,
>
> I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than
> the proposer :)
>
>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:33, Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
> [...]
>> (Regarding the DB accuracy, I think Sander has answered this upthread
>> in a way I find convincing: if trading for these /22s is limited, of
>> course someone who trades "under the desk" will not be able to update
>> the registry, so potentially someone else uses the /22 and can not document
>> that.  Would I buy a /22 that I can not legally transfer into my LIR?
> legally?
>
>> No, because I'm all at the mercy of the seller - if he closes his LIR,
>> "my" /22 is gone.  So I'd go and find a unencumbed /22 on the market - and
>> in my book, this would mean "mission accomplished, trading discouraged")
> If things would be so simple...
>
> Look at what's happening in ARIN. Lots of transfers (some very large
> ones as well) are done by means of financial/contractual artifices
> (furures contracts and such) avoiding the needs based criteria from
> the policy. Millions of IPs seem to change hands but the transfer are
> not recorded in the registry.
>
> While *you* would not trade a 'last allocated' block, it does not mean
> that these will not trade.
>
> I have been extremely happy with the very simple (non-restrictive)
> transfer policy that we have had for years and I think this proposal
> will only complicate things.
>
> Yet an other colour of the IPv4 space is something we should avoid.
> Numbers are numbers and giving them colours - legacy, anycast, PA, PI
> -, and now non-transferable is something we as a community should
> avoid. And if it were to still work on the IPv4 policy, I would do my
> best to clean all these colours away and keep only one.
>
> The M&As have been an issue for years and these will become the next
> issue if this proposal gets accepted. I also await the response from
> the NCC before commenting further on this issue.
>
> I also do not think it's ok to have a policy change the status of a
> resource 'in the middle of the game' and think that even if accepted,
> this proposal should cause a change of status only from the moment it
> is implemented.
>
>> Gert Doering
>>         -- APWG chair
> /elvis
>