Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:23:12AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
On 20 Jun 2016, at 10:16, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
- do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no? ... But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer the question.
No. Maybe. Depends.
If we do tweak the current policy, there???s one consequence that has to be considered though: the integrity and accuracy of the RIPE database.
Of course, right you are. Changing policy must not be done without considering the consquences, and I did not want to imply that. The problem with this thread, though, is that people have been complaining about lots of implicit things, which might or might not actually *be* a consequence of the change (like, stuff no longer present in v2), without bothering to consider the proposal itself. And this, frankly, is just a little bit annoying. (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? 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") Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279