Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:53:29PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than > the proposer :)
I'm trying to not side either way, but the poor quality of some of the arguments is annoying me enough to try to counter them. > > On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:33, Gert Doering <[email protected]> > [...] > > (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? > legally? "according to the rules that govern transfers" - make it "formally" or "contractually" or whatever word you like more. > > 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") > > If things would be so simple... > > Look at what's happening in ARIN. Lots of transfers (some very large > ones as well) are done by means of financial/contractual artifices > (furures contracts and such) avoiding the needs based criteria from > the policy. Millions of IPs seem to change hands but the transfer are > not recorded in the registry. > > While *you* would not trade a 'last allocated' block, it does not mean > that these will not trade. Well, in that case I can only say "I recommend this to all my competitors" - it would be tremendously silly to buy a /22 that can not be registered to my company, and that the NCC *will* request back (= no route objects, no reverse DNS, no inetnums) if the seller's LIR is closed. Someone buying addresses on the market should understand the market they are operating in - and if not, they should hire a broker to make sure that they will get value for their money. [..] > I also do not think it's ok to have a policy change the status of a > resource 'in the middle of the game' and think that even if accepted, > this proposal should cause a change of status only from the moment it > is implemented. Where was that argument when transfers were initially allowed? Following this argument, we couldn't do any policy changes that affect future actions for pre-existing allocations or assignments. Funny that we could do so in the past just fine. 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
