Hi Jim,
El 15/7/19 2:16, "Jim Reid" <[email protected]> escribió:
> On 14 Jul 2019, at 22:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I know that every region is different, but we live in a global Internet,
and it is surprising to me that we are the only out of 5 RIRs, that has not
done this already.
Embrace diversity!
I'm fine with diversity, or course!
"Because the other RIRs do it" isn't by itself a strong enough
justification for the RIPE region to copy them.
My point here is that I disagree with not turning non-legacy into legacy. I
think this is bad for the community. So as part of the diversity, my point of
view is "divergent" with the actual policy, but is the same as the other 4
RIRs. I'm sure in RIPE we have people in one side, the other side, and the
middle one.
In this particular case, I am not convinced the proposal has any merit.
Forcing legacy space to be subject to RIR policy on transfer is just wrong.
The holders got that space before the RIRs existed. Which means it's grossly
unfair and unreasonable to retroactively make that space subject to RIR policy,
even when that space gets transferred. If the legacy holder chooses to do that,
fine. However they cannot and must not be compelled to do so.
Here is where we disagree. I'm looking for what is best of the overall
community, not the best of the legacy owners. I'm very honest here. It was just
wrong we got legacy allocations, but it was no other way as the RIRs didn't
existed. I think we can try to correct as much as possible past mistakes.
Nobody is forcing the existing holders to do the transfers, they can just keep
their resources and avoid that. I think is fair that destination holders are
in-the-systems mandatorily.
Such a policy may also be counter-productive since it (a) could discourage
legacy holders from releasing unused space; (b) make such space unattractive to
recipients because it would be subject to RIR policies, RIR fees might be
payable, etc. (c) introduce uncertainty in the transfer market because donors
and recipients get concerned that future transfers of legacy space could get
singled out for yet more Bad Ideas.
I think it has been demonstrated by the stats of the last 2 years, that (a) is
not the reality. (b) this is a community decision, and my personal view is that
it should be that way. (c) this will not be retroactive: transfers already done
with the exiting policy will not turn into non-legacy (unless they get
transferred again).
Let's assume your hypothetical proposal became policy Jordi. Would it apply
to transfers of legacy space that took place before this policy came into
effect? If no, why not? If yes, it would imply all RIR policies have to be
retroactively be imposed on legacy holders.
I just responded to this (c) above. I'm not considering retroactivity. They
will if they become transferred again.
I think it's time to introduce a new policy proposal which brings about a
moratorium on v4 address policy proposals.
> I think this is a benefit for the global community, because ... increase
the transparency and community control.
Your comment about increased control is deeply troubling. Are you trying to
turn the RIR system into the IP address police or the ITU? Do you want to bring
about an investigation by the competition authorities? Be careful what you wish
for -- you just might get it!
You know may answer already: not at all. I meant control by *this* community,
by our policy system. Sorry if I was not clear.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
