The intention is that we bring into the community rules (policies) as many addresses as possible.
I think it is unfair to have some addresses bound to our policies (in whatever region), and others not. I know we can't mandate for the legacy holders, but we can, if as a community, we decide that for the beneficiaries of legacy transfers, by amending our policy to state that those addresses lose the legacy status with that transfer. Now is optional in RIPE, mandatory in all the other regions. To be clear, when I mention the other regions status: 1) In LACNIC the proposal, which I authored as well, passed consensus a month ago (now in implementation stage). It is also based in the existing intra-RIR policy, where the legacy status is lost once they get transferred. 2) In AFRINIC, at the moment, there is an inter-RIR proposal, which I'm the author. It is based in the existing intra-RIR policy, where the legacy status is lost once they get transferred. So right now, intra-RIR already lost the legacy status. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 15/7/19 12:32, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Erik Bais" <[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: Hi Jordi, Please keep the lingo correct.. you keep referring to non-legacy .. but your intention and this complete discussion is about Legacy space. Typically we are talking about inter-rir transfers from ARIN to RIPE if I read it correctly. As most Legacy space that comes into RIPE has an ARIN origin. There is APNIC as well, but just less transfers from APNIC to RIPE with legacy .. While I've done 'some' Legacy inter-rir transfers .. is there a problem with how it is being transferred ? There is the option currently for legacy resource holders to move IP space between RIR's (ARIN to RIPE for instance) for cost, policy, tools or rights acceptance reasons .. or just because their HQ is moving from the ARIN region to RIPE region. Why should they be stripped of their current status ? what is the intention here ? Regards, Erik Bais On 15/07/2019, 11:39, "address-policy-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Hi Tore, I think my previus email just explained it. The motivation is my personal view that we have a problem (as a community) by not bringing into the system the legacy resources. I'm alone with that view? I don't know, and that's why I'm asking. What is clear to me is that, according to existing policies, I share this view with 4/5 of the RIR communities. What is the effect of that? Simple, an unbalance of transfers among regions, because if someone for whatever reason want to get resources and keep them non-legacy, can just come to RIPE for that. This is good for RIPE? I don't think so, we could keep growing the non-legacy resources, while other regions get "cleaned". Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 15/7/19 10:05, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Tore Anderson" <[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: * Gert Doering > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 01:37:19PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: >> I keep thinking that ripe-682 (RIPE resource transfer policies), should have a provision (as it is the case in all the other RIRs), in order to "convert" the legacy resources to non-legacy, when they got transferred. > > What is it that you want to achieve with this? +1 I've read this entire thread and I still have no idea what the motivation for this (pre-)proposal actually is. Is it a solution in search of a problem? Maybe if you could explain by example, Jordi? Were you involved in a transfer of legacy resources and stumbled across some kind of obstacle caused by current policies (that this proposal addresses)? Tore ********************************************** 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. ********************************************** 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.
