* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > -> Because I think when there is an unfair situation (some folks bound to > rules/policies, others not), there is a problem. ... > -> Because is not subjected to the same rules (policies) as the non-legacy > one. That's unfair.
Thank you for clarifying. I don't believe this «unfairness» rationale had been mentioned before. Others have explained how the legacy resources were given out with no RIR policy strings attached. You could make the opposite argument too, i.e., that it would be unfair behaviour by the RIPE community to try and retroactively annex legacy space in this way by unilaterally applying terms and conditions that were never agreed to in the first place. In any case, and to be perfectly honest, this rationale reads to like petty jealousy to me - «I can't do X with my RIPE ALLOCATED PA, so I don't want others to be able to do X either». I don't believe this kind of policy making is good for the community. I suspect the opposite is true, by turning legacy holders off from engaging with us. Keep in mind that they are under no obligation to do so. A more positive way to approach this perceived unfairness would be to focus on what X is, and see if the RIPE policy can be changed to permit it. Tore
