In principle I support this policy as it contributed to declassification of different address-blocks. Conditions should be the same for any allocation regardless of when it was made. Otoh, it is questionable how efficient this would be. It may be many ways around it that organisations can use to "hide" legacy allocations. It also falls in the same pit as every policy that tries to say anything about the use of previously assigned addresses (reclaiming/transfer etc). Unless the RIRs are given regulatory powers they can't efficiently control much beyond how they conduct allocations from the free pool. To change this we need something like a working rpki infrastructure and restrictions (or at least a strong recommendation) on registered AS'es not to announce or accept unsigned prefixes. This is a big conceptual change for the RIR as they get involved in routing decisions, but I can't see any other way to implement efficient regulation. It is widely accepted that there already is a black transfer-market, which proves that the threat of loosing whois and rdns is not enough big enough a stick. -- Per Heldal - http://heldal.eml.cc/