David, thanks for your comments. On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, David Farmer wrote:
in the heated discussion about 2013-03 ("no need"), I think this proposal might have escaped your attention.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:08:26PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:
A proposed change to RIPE Policy Document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
This is an amendment to the transfer policy which solves real-world problems for real-world LIRs - namely: abandon the requirement that a transferred block of addresses must be empty, because that conflicts with real-world scenarios, like a customer of a given LIR opening his own LIR later on, both parties agree to transfer the addresses the customer uses to the new LIR (= the customer's LIR of the customer using the addresses already), and the NCC then tells them "no, you can't do that".
The proposal is in *discussion* phase, so if you want to discuss, now is the time. (If you just "+1" it, that's also a clear signal :-) ).
regards,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
I support the intent of the proposal, there are situations where it seems reasonable to allow transfers of blocks with end users in them, and the current blanket exclusion prevents this.
However, I also support the original intent of the language that would be removed. I believe the intent of the original language was to prevent an LIR selling off a block that has active End Users in it, at least without notice or consent, etc...
For the example case given in the proposal, it seems that consent should be readily obtainable. So, would a better solution be to add "without consent of the End User(s)" to the current text. This provides flexibility without abandoning the protection the current text provides to End Users.
In the rationale I used this expressions: "... it should be possible to transfer a continuous block from one LIR into an allocation and correct assignments of the new LIR while preserving the assignments." - I wanted to make clear that the new LIR would of course inherit End-User assignments and also the responsibilities for them. You think the End-Users should get involved into a planned transfer of an allocation to a new LIR? It might not be realistic to ask hundreds of End-Users for permission to transfer an allocation. Is that what you were suggesting? Thanks Sascha -- Sascha E. Pollok E-Mail: sp@iphh.net Manager Network Design and Operations Tel: +49 (0)40 374919-10 IPHH Internet Port Hamburg GmbH Fax: +49 (0)40 374919-29 Wendenstrasse 408 AG Hamburg, HRB 76071 20537 Hamburg, Germany CEO: Axel G. Kroeger