Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:23:12AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 20 Jun 2016, at 10:16, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > - do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no? > > ... > > But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer > > the question. > > No. Maybe. Depends. > > If we do tweak the current policy, there???s one consequence that has to be > considered though: the integrity and accuracy of the RIPE database.
Of course, right you are. Changing policy must not be done without
considering the consquences, and I did not want to imply that.
The problem with this thread, though, is that people have been complaining
about lots of implicit things, which might or might not actually *be* a
consequence of the change (like, stuff no longer present in v2), without
bothering to consider the proposal itself.
And this, frankly, is just a little bit annoying.
(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?
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")
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
