On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:40, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Is this to be interpreted as:
a) the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry
or
b) the LIR has not registered any IPv4 address space transfer out of its registry?
Option b is enforceable but largely pointless.
Not really. Unless you assume that 100% of LIRs have evil intentions.
Option a is unenforceable because if the LIR chooses not to register the transfer, then there is no way for the RIPE NCC to conclusively prove that a transfer has happened and thus to deny the new allocation.
This proposal as it stands will put selective pressure on LIRs to implement hidden transfer agreements and then to tell lies to the RIPE NCC in order to justify getting more IP address space. This is not good stewardship of resources.
If the transfer source does not register the transfer, the transfer destination (the one that pays) may not agree - it requires much more legal paperwork in order to ensure that ressources somehow "belong" to the one that pays. Pretty much like selling a company but not registering anywhere the sale (ok, in that case the registration info may not be public). Another thing, how do you define a "hidden transfer" ? Some LIRs do have assignments from other LIRs that they announce in the global table with their own AS. Those IPs still "belong" to the LIR having the superblock even if the superblock is not announced. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs