Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
A couple of observations, fwiw, and no, I'm not going to assess the role of brokers :-) In general, let me start with the statement that I support all ideas to get rid of the different shapes and colours of address blocks. And that actually includes Legacy, as they are simply PI, just a tad older... How to deal with moving address space from a PI assignment to a different party? Well, I can see 2 *substantially* different scenarios: 1) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *all of it* any longer (and wants to get money from an interested party, but that's a side issue). 2) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *any* of the addresses any longer and wants to transfer the full block, in one chunk or in smaller pieces. Nr. 1 is pretty easy, and possible already or really soon now: convert the PI block to PA, thus become an LIR, and proceed according to the rules. Nr. 2 is more tricky. First of all, there was a good reason, why the resource was tightly bound to the requester. That background and assumption is also part of the basis for the low annual fee of €50,- per resource. Now, as soon as the original criteria are no longer in place, the resource MUST be returned. A PI holder offering the *full block* to an interested party (for money or for free) obviously matches that provision. The resource needs to get returned to the pool. So, why would we want to bend into this direction or that direction to create a special case for Nr. 2 to circumvent the existing policy? Just because some money is seen on the horizon? Which gets me to the point of *not* supporting this proposal! Wilfried.
Hi Wilfried, I agree with you in both scenarios you described below. However, the reality of the current world is not that simple. IP addresses have a value, whether we want to acknowledge that fact or not. Some holders of PI address space have also realized that their PI space has some value, some will do the right thing and become LIRs in order to convert the PI to PA and then transfer the space. This policy proposal does not intend to address these users, the ones that will do the right thing by becoming a member and paying their share. Some others, will just transfer the space (by making a contract/document/agreement between them and an other party) or just allow someone else to use the address space without any notification to the RIPE NCC or updates in the registry. While these are the 'bad guys' and I do not thing we should be making policy changes to encourage them, by not making a policy change the registry will suffer. Not everyone will give up on their PI space if they do not use it anymore. Especially if they receive e-mails from people that want to 'rent/lease' their space for some money. I still don't know if it's a good thing to allow PI transfers and have individuals or companies that have only been paying 50E/year to transfer (sell) their PI space for a nice profit AND keep the registry as clean and updated as possible. OR.. give the RIPE NCC a mandate to start hunting those that violate the PI policy OR.. just pretend there's no problem and accept that the registry data may get outdated with time. my 2 cents, elvis On 24/04/14 17:24, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
A couple of observations, fwiw, and no, I'm not going to assess the role of brokers :-)
In general, let me start with the statement that I support all ideas to get rid of the different shapes and colours of address blocks. And that actually includes Legacy, as they are simply PI, just a tad older...
How to deal with moving address space from a PI assignment to a different party?
Well, I can see 2 *substantially* different scenarios:
1) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *all of it* any longer (and wants to get money from an interested party, but that's a side issue).
2) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *any* of the addresses any longer and wants to transfer the full block, in one chunk or in smaller pieces.
Nr. 1 is pretty easy, and possible already or really soon now: convert the PI block to PA, thus become an LIR, and proceed according to the rules.
Nr. 2 is more tricky. First of all, there was a good reason, why the resource was tightly bound to the requester. That background and assumption is also part of the basis for the low annual fee of €50,- per resource.
Now, as soon as the original criteria are no longer in place, the resource MUST be returned. A PI holder offering the *full block* to an interested party (for money or for free) obviously matches that provision. The resource needs to get returned to the pool.
So, why would we want to bend into this direction or that direction to create a special case for Nr. 2 to circumvent the existing policy? Just because some money is seen on the horizon?
Which gets me to the point of *not* supporting this proposal!
Wilfried.
-- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 05:24:26PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
A couple of observations, fwiw, and no, I'm not going to assess the role of brokers :-)
In general, let me start with the statement that I support all ideas to get rid of the different shapes and colours of address blocks. And that actually includes Legacy, as they are simply PI, just a tad older...
Glad to see a gradual return to the sanity of two decades ago. /bill
Hi, On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:08:06PM -0700, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Glad to see a gradual return to the sanity of two decades ago.
Can I have a Class A, please? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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
Dear Gert,
Can I have a Class A, please?
You can try at the nearest bookshop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_A_%28novel%29 there may be a couple left, however, I fear this is not what you are looking for. :) Best regards, Janos
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:56:00AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:08:06PM -0700, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Glad to see a gradual return to the sanity of two decades ago.
Can I have a Class A, please?
Gert Doering -- NetMaster --
No. Classes were abolished last century. However you are certainly welcome to a /8 or its equivalent, a /32. Pick one up on your way out the door. Oh, and never come back for more 'cause thats all you'll ever need. /bill
Hi Bill, Before we are going completely off-topic, I'm pretty sure you are aware that Gert won't settle for just a /32 and never come back, as he could get it extended to a /29 these days ... On topic ... As we are still discussing the proposal, I'll discus with PDO and the WG chairs if they agree with me to extend the discussion phase with 2 weeks. Regards, Erik Bais
Hi, On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:38:10PM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
Before we are going completely off-topic, I'm pretty sure you are aware that Gert won't settle for just a /32 and never come back, as he could get it extended to a /29 these days ...
On topic ... As we are still discussing the proposal, I'll discus with PDO and the WG chairs if they agree with me to extend the discussion phase with 2 weeks.
Please extend it to just after the RIPE meeting, so we have the discussion phase plus the "face to face" discussions to base the "how to go ahead?" discussions on. 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
Hi Wilfried,
How to deal with moving address space from a PI assignment to a different party?
Well, I can see 2 *substantially* different scenarios:
1) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *all of it* any longer (and wants to get money from an interested party, but that's a side issue).
2) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *any* of the addresses any longer and wants to transfer the full block, in one chunk or in smaller pieces.
Nr. 1 is pretty easy, and possible already or really soon now: convert the PI block to PA, thus become an LIR, and proceed according to the rules.
Nr. 2 is more tricky.
Actually, I don't believe it is - your procedure #1 will work just as well for case #2 as it would for case #1. That this works is stated fairly clearly on the NCC's web site: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa So PI transfers are already possible, following this procedure: 1) The current PI holder signs up as a member and pays the first invoice. In 2014, this would cost somewhere between €2437.50 and €3750 depending on in which quartal it happens. 2) The PI block (or parts of it) is converted to PA. 3) The new PA block is transferred to another NCC member under ripe-606 section 5.5. [...] 6) Finally, original PI holder may optionally close his LIR to avoid any further membership fees. He'd then also have to move any remaining parts of his PI assignment into a sponsoring relationship with another LIR. What it boils down to is that we are levying a transaction fee for non-members. That might be perfectly OK in itself (APNIC does too, FWIW), but we're doing it in a really awkward and roundabout way. One benefit is that once a PI block has become PA, there is no going back, and we've ensured that all its future holders will all be members that will be participating equally in the cost-sharing model. However, there is a possible disadvantage too - by forcing the original PI holder to become a (temporary) member in the first place, we're almost inviting him to take advantage of that fact by adding the following steps to the above procedure: 4) The original PI holder requests a /22 from the «last /8» pool. 5) The original PI holder transfers that /22 to another NCC member under ripe-606 section 5.5. Now, assuming that the hear-say about the market value of €10/address is anywhere near correct, step #5 would net him around ~€10.240. That is almost three times the worst case «transaction fee» from step #1. Oops! So we don't really have a functioning «fee» that would positively fund the cost-sharing model, but an invitation to make a quick extra buck at the community's expense.
Now, as soon as the original criteria are no longer in place, the resource MUST be returned. A PI holder offering the *full block* to an interested party (for money or for free) obviously matches that provision. The resource needs to get returned to the pool.
I don't think you can support this claim with actual policy provisions. What policy says, is that an such an assignment is «no longer valid». It does *not* say what should happen to invalid assignments, but one obvious way to deal with it is to fix whatever is making it invalid, so that it no longer is. There are several other things that might make an assignment invalid too, and this page talks about how they should be fixed, not how they should be reclaimed: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/number-resources/invali... In this specific case, I'd say that converting PI to PA is a perfectly logical way of correcting a PI assignment that has been made invalid due to a criteria change. The PI holder could for example have started an ISP service and assigned PI blocks to his end users, which is invalid usage for PI, but it is exactly what PA is intended for. Tore
participants (7)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Janos Zsako -
Tore Anderson -
Wilfried Woeber