Hi,
On 4/27/17 11:57 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
[...]
The way I see it, this policy proposal does not add extra
requirements, it adds an extra service.
Which is exactly?
Transfer services according to the transfer policy.
and who will benefit from it?
the whole community
- only LRHs?
LRH will have the option to register the transfer.
- the whole community?
the community will see better stats on how much is transferred.
- non-LRHs?
non-LRHs who want to purchase a LR will have the confirmation of the
RIPE NCC that the IP block transfer has been verified by a third-party
(the NCC)
I think protection (or just better alarms in place!) for Legacy
address
space is a good thing, however, i'm not sure an extra workload for
the NCC
and the LRH in the case they want to transfer their asset(s) is the
way to
go.
the extra workload is a document signed by the representatives of the
two LRH (the Seller and the Buyer). The RIPE NCC verifies these kind
of documents on a daily basis so I doubt that would be a whole lot of
extra workload - they will confirm during the Impact Analysis.
Sure. And what would exactly configures a failed verification?
A representative not having the proper authority to sign on behalf of
the LRH. Or someone that has the maintainer password pretending to act
on behalf of the LRH and trying to hijack the resource.
I also agree with Sascha Luck's previous comment about LRH having to
submit to an extra verification process.
As mentioned in my response to Sascha's e-mail, the LRH can and will
still be able to update their objects in the RIPE Database even
without any document signed.
You mean the "selling LRH"...?
yes
If my memory doesn't fail me, there are already some words about
transfers on the current services' policy -- i need to double-check that.
LRH can be updated to point to an other company but a transfer in the
real sense would only be confirmed once the RIPE NCC receives a signed
document and can verify the signatory has the authority.
All this policy proposal does is that when the two parties want to
finalise the transfer
Is there a need for that...? How many LRH have expressed concerns
about such a gap?
It is not a gap in the policies. Transfers of legacy space are currently
not verified and/or approved by the RIPE NCC. Any update of a LR in the
database object does not require the RIPE NCC to update the registry.
and request RIPE NCC's confirmation,
LRHs currently don't need to do this...?
LRHs who have a contract with the RIPE NCC may need to request it, the
ones that have opted not to have a contract are not required to present
the RIPE NCC any kind of documentation, they can just update the object
in the RIPE Database and that's it.
they will need to sign a document.
- the RIPE NCC would then verify the old holder is the legitimate LRH
and
If the current holder has a services agreement in place with the NCC,
this is already covered, right?
yes, I think.
- the RIPE NCC will also verify the transfer document is signed by
authorised signatories on both the old and the new LRH.
Here, i think the NCC will only need to get a new services agreement
signed with the *new* holder, if the new holder wishes to...
it's not that simple. What if the previous LRH does not have a services
agreement? What if the new LRH does not want to sign one?
In its current terms, i also object to this proposal.
Would there be any version that you would agree to, one that would
consistently allow the RIPE NCC to publish the transfers of Intra-RIR
legacy resources?
As i previously said, stats (and potential hijack alarms) are a good
thing. But this version still needs a lot of work, and especially also
strong support from the LRHs -- otherwise, this verification mechanism
you're trying to suggest will not add anything...
What would you like me to work on? What is unclear.
The mechanism will provide the Buyer an option to request the RIPE NCC
to verify and confirm (finalise) the transfer. I expect this requirement
to become the standard for transfers of LR.
And again, the NCC only has business regarding the services it
provides to LRHs, but not over the address space itself... i think we
are all aware about that bit.
I am aware of this and this policy proposal does not aim to give the
RIPE NCC additional powers over the LR.
Best Regards,
Carlos
Kind regards,
Elvis
--
Elvis Daniel Velea
V4Escrow LLC
Chief Executive Officer
E-mail: [email protected]
Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921
