There will be no objection to applying a retrospective rule that makes no difference or only affects individuals in a positive way. However to impose post contractual limitations after contracts have been agreed and then apply them retrospectively is in my opinion very questionable.

Perhaps a better use of time and efforts is to let IPv4 die it’s inevitable death; that will force other’s hands adopting IPv6 sooner rather than later. 

Adrian. 

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 08:27:07PM +0000, Adrian Bolster wrote:

Whilst I agree with the vast majority of your email it is absurd

to retrospectively apply a newly adopted policy. I believe this

would be a very unhealthy precedent to set.

Strictly speaking, all transfer policies have been applied retroactively
(at some point, transfers were made possible for all resources that had
been allocated or assigned before that point).  Also, we have done this
when increasing the holding period for the /22s to 24 months - which,
of course, people that made money of doing fast-LIRs did not like.

So this has been done and can be done again.

What we cannot do is retroactively disallow a transfer that has already
been *done*, but deciding new policies for existing allocations and
assignment is fully covered by the RIPE general service agreement.

Gert Doering
       -- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279