Hi Gert, On 18. 10. 2012, at 15:48, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 03:45:01PM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote:
Transferring address blocks to those in need and receiving monetary compensation in exchange is *not* against RIPE policies.
To the contrary, it is expected that the transfers are registered with the RIPE NCC so people know who currently "owns"(*) an address block.
The email/proposition talks about "leases", and not transfers.
Transfers can be temporary.
I see nothing about temporary transfers in 5.5 of IPv5 policy. The leases would best fit under "sub-allocations", but that's just for downstream network operators (and I read that as BGP downstreams, not a random entity on the net). Also the transfers has to be approved by RIPE NCC, so you cannot ensure it's "temporary", because you can be denied the transfer-back. Correct me if I read the policy in a wrong way.
And if I remember correctly you should return unused blocks and not lease them, don't you?
You are certainly welcome to return unsed blocks to the RIPE NCC, but you do not *have* to - the policies for allocations do not require that (and there is no provision for the NCC to forcibly take them back either), that's only for assignments.
True, that was just my thinking about being a good "netizen", but it's not covered in the policy. Anyway I still think the leases are not in the line with the current policy. O. -- Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------