On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:37:22AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
To clarify here ... although all types of number resources can be transferred.. ( AS, IPv4, IPv6 ) there are some specific resources ( like v4 for IXP usage ) are not allowed to be transferred and MUST be returned.. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649#61
So in itself it is a more specific statement in the intent of the policy, this new policy isn't going to change the transfer options if the current policy states that it must be returned..
OK, didn't actually know this restriction existed.
I also addressed this in the email of James. And it was also discussed during the AS transfer policy in the room at the AP-WG. The transfer policy time restriction is for scarce resources .. ( like IPv4 and 16-bits ASN's.) and not for IPv6 or 32-bit ASn's.
A holding period for ASN16 is a material change in assignment policy and should be in a separate proposal, not hidden in a (in itself valuable) transfer policy aggregation proposal.
Btw.. did you see that nr. 4.0 will also implement if a new field in the transfer statistics ...
- Whether it was a transfer or merger/acquisition
As it will also make a slight change in the transfer restrictions .. as it closes the 'loophole' to have transfers now also restricted after M&A's and not only after allocation by RIPE NCC or transfers.
What is this supposed to mean? The 24-month timer resets if a resource is acquired by M&A? Pretty substantial change IMO. Again, this should be subject to a separate proposal. And perhaps a membership vote as it materially affects the M&A procedure. People, the RIPE community should not make policy like the US House of Representatives - by this I mean hiding your wish list in marginally related legislation in the hope that it will go unnoticed. This proposal is a much needed aggregation of scattered policy items and a laudable effort by the author. It is ill served by trying to make changes to policy at the same time. As a result, I will oppose 2015-04 until I am satisfied that there is no material change in policy contained within, and am looking forward to discuss such changes on their own merits. rgds, Sascha Luck