On 13 Apr 2012, at 09:52, Carlos Friacas wrote:
I may be wrong, but i guess this community has some rules about returning resources to the RIR when they are not being used anymore. So, if there is a plan to "transfer" those resources to a (specific) 3rd party, it probably means they are not being used, so they should firstly be returned to our RIR... if current rules have any value.
Carlos, this is true in an abstract, academic sense. However it won't apply in the real world. For one thing, it doesn't necessarily follow that those addresses are not used: the donor (seller) just has no need for them any more. A "business reorganisation" could mean those addresses and the customers using them move to a new entity. Transfers between LIRs can already be gamed within the existing policies. Expect to see more of this once v4 has run out. So please, let's not kid ourselves that blocks of "unused" IPv4 addresses will always be returned to the RIR who issued them. That will be even less likely when those blocks are perceived to have significant value once the RIRs have no more v4 resources. IMO it's far more important that the RIRs keep track of who's got which blocks of addresses and maintain an accurate, timely database of that info. An address policy which reflects that will be better than one which doesn't.