[address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)

Hi Leo,  

Let me provide some insight on how Inter-RIR legacy  transfer go from, for instance ARIN to RIPE.  

Once a ticket has been submitted via the ARIN system for a transfer, by the originating party, ARIN will process the transfer, verify the legitimacy of the holdership etc.  and they will forward the ticket to RIPE NCC.  

The RIPE NCC will do the check with the receiving party if they are eligible for the transfer and can justify the needs assessment that is required.  

The RIPE NCC will request the parties (received and originating party) to indemnify the RIPE NCC for any changes in the RIPE DB .. the word is that it isn't a contract, but there are legal words involved and signatures required on paper and the RIPE NCC is the third party beneficiary of the paper that isn't a contract.  ( the indemnification .. )  

And then they will also request a copy of the company registration of the receiving party and the originating party for the correct documentation in the Registry (the RIPE NCC internal system).  
The RIPE NCC has a very strict verification system in place for transfers, so your assumption that they don't verify or approve transfers ... ( Specifically Legacy resources.. ) is not correct. They do verify and check . . . and check .. and check again ..  
And I rather have them do this once to many times. And this is almost similar for regular Legacy transfers if a parent prefix needs to be split .. as that can only be done by the RIPE NCC and the updating of the registry of the RIPE NCC for holdership changes must also be documented properly.. So if you ask the RIPE NCC to update the registry after a legacy transfer, they will ask you for some documents to proof who you are and to indemnify the RIPE NCC for any mistakes in the updating of the info if needed.. 

I never had ANY LHR ask me why they are not listed in the RIPE stats for transfer as a Legacy holder. Most of the sending and receiving parties would rather not be listed instead of being published on the transfer stats page.  

However for completion of the data about transfers, it could be interesting for some (mostly researchers and probably brokers.. )  to get an idea about the current market..  

However if you maintain your own versioning of the RIPE database, you can also do this yourself internally and just diff the DB between last week and today if needed. 

As on your remark on the services WG as the Go-To WG for LHR .. that might swing both ways.. as most Transfer policy discussions have been done here.  But I'm not arguing that you are incorrect on the point. 

Regards,
Erik Bais    
A2B Internet & Prefix Broker 


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Leo Vegoda
Verzonden: vrijdag 28 april 2017 18:21
Aan: elvis at v4escrow.net; Carlos Friacas <cfriacas at fccn.pt>
CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)

Hi Elvis,

Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

[...]

> Is there a need for that...? How many LRH have expressed concerns
> about such a gap?
It is not a gap in the policies. Transfers of legacy space are currently
not verified and/or approved by the RIPE NCC. Any update of a LR in the
database object does not require the RIPE NCC to update the registry.

If there is no gap in the policies and what you are proposing is service, why 
was this introduced to the Address Policy WG? The charter for the RIPE NCC 
Services Working Group makes it clear that it is the home for discussions 
about the introduction of new services and tools 
(https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services).

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda