Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
hi! On 05/09/2012 03:02 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
this proposal doesn't fit with the current hierarchical structure of rirs and lirs. if this hierarchical structure is to be changed, this would be an essential change. introducing such a change in just a subordinate procedure isn't the way to go. i can't see a justification or explanation why the rir/lir hierarchical structure should be changed. furthermore this proposal is incompatible with policy - with the current one, and as it doesn't change the incompatibilities also with the proposed changed policy. i don't think it's reasonable to try to drop the primacy of fair and according to need distribution of ip-space. as the readers of this ml certainly know, the proposed change is actually meant to facilitate the trade of ips, this way implying (well - trying to imply) the change to ips as an asset (with a plethora of further adverse consequences). i formally voice strong and sustained opposition. i'd suggest that inter-rir transfers simply take the canonical way: from current lir, back to current lir's rir, to target lir's rir, to the target lir. regards, Chris
Dear Chris, Your objection to the current transfer policy as accepted by the RIPE community is noted. However, I don't think it relates to this policy proposal. If you feel strongly about changing (or removing, for that matter) the current transfer policy, I suggest you launch a separate policy proposal to do just that. Kind regards, Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 09-05-12 15:29, "chrish@consol.net" <chrish@consol.net> wrote:
hi!
On 05/09/2012 03:02 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
this proposal doesn't fit with the current hierarchical structure of rirs and lirs. if this hierarchical structure is to be changed, this would be an essential change. introducing such a change in just a subordinate procedure isn't the way to go. i can't see a justification or explanation why the rir/lir hierarchical structure should be changed.
furthermore this proposal is incompatible with policy - with the current one, and as it doesn't change the incompatibilities also with the proposed changed policy. i don't think it's reasonable to try to drop the primacy of fair and according to need distribution of ip-space.
as the readers of this ml certainly know, the proposed change is actually meant to facilitate the trade of ips, this way implying (well - trying to imply) the change to ips as an asset (with a plethora of further adverse consequences).
i formally voice strong and sustained opposition.
i'd suggest that inter-rir transfers simply take the canonical way: from current lir, back to current lir's rir, to target lir's rir, to the target lir.
regards,
Chris
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
On 9 May 2012 14:29, <chrish@consol.net> wrote:
hi!
On 05/09/2012 03:02 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
this proposal doesn't fit with the current hierarchical structure of rirs and lirs. if this hierarchical structure is to be changed, this would be an essential change. introducing such a change in just a subordinate procedure isn't the way to go. i can't see a justification or explanation why the rir/lir hierarchical structure should be changed.
Hi, This policy only uses the existing to transfer policy for a transfer between two LIRs within a region to allow an Inter-regional transfer of addresses. If you have objects to the concept of transfers then you need to address the current transfer process rather than this extension. J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
participants (3)
-
chrish＠consol.net -
James Blessing -
Remco Van Mook