[address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu Gheorghiu
radu at pengooin.net
Mon Jun 20 12:56:37 CEST 2016
Well said! Regards, Radu Gheorghiu On 06/20/2016 01:53 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > Hi Gert, > > I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than > the proposer :) > >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:33, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> > [...] >> (Regarding the DB accuracy, I think Sander has answered this upthread >> in a way I find convincing: if trading for these /22s is limited, of >> course someone who trades "under the desk" will not be able to update >> the registry, so potentially someone else uses the /22 and can not document >> that. Would I buy a /22 that I can not legally transfer into my LIR? > legally? > >> No, because I'm all at the mercy of the seller - if he closes his LIR, >> "my" /22 is gone. So I'd go and find a unencumbed /22 on the market - and >> in my book, this would mean "mission accomplished, trading discouraged") > If things would be so simple... > > Look at what's happening in ARIN. Lots of transfers (some very large > ones as well) are done by means of financial/contractual artifices > (furures contracts and such) avoiding the needs based criteria from > the policy. Millions of IPs seem to change hands but the transfer are > not recorded in the registry. > > While *you* would not trade a 'last allocated' block, it does not mean > that these will not trade. > > I have been extremely happy with the very simple (non-restrictive) > transfer policy that we have had for years and I think this proposal > will only complicate things. > > Yet an other colour of the IPv4 space is something we should avoid. > Numbers are numbers and giving them colours - legacy, anycast, PA, PI > -, and now non-transferable is something we as a community should > avoid. And if it were to still work on the IPv4 policy, I would do my > best to clean all these colours away and keep only one. > > The M&As have been an issue for years and these will become the next > issue if this proposal gets accepted. I also await the response from > the NCC before commenting further on this issue. > > I also do not think it's ok to have a policy change the status of a > resource 'in the middle of the game' and think that even if accepted, > this proposal should cause a change of status only from the moment it > is implemented. > >> Gert Doering >> -- APWG chair > /elvis >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]