Hi, On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 04:05:05PM -0400, Mike Burns wrote: > >Jordi has already expressed the problem and supported his depiction of > >unfairness that can be shifted. He buttressed his expression by pointing to > >relevant policies at every other RIR as evidence that he is not alone in his > >view. I would say he established his problem statement as a desire to shift > >the unfairness of retaining special address status after the provision of > >services that never existed for legacy owners before the RIR system. (At > >least I am unaware of booked transfers being possible to legacy holders > >prior to the RIR system.)
There is a *difference*, undoubtly so.
Whether it is an *unfairness* or not seems to be very much a personal
opinion - I have heard more disagrement than agreement.
And of course transfers have been possible before the RIRs existed :-)
- whether or not they are "booked transfers" depends a bit on "in which
book" - I'm fairly sure you could send a mail to Jon Postel "I have
given this class B to my friend because I do not need it anymore" and
that was subsequently recorded.
Of course not in "the RIPE NCC book", since that did not exist.
I should point out one of the usual counterarguments against imposing
too much bureaucracy, especially regarding transfers. We want proper
documentation. Before almost everything else(!). Impose extra
restrictions on transfers, and some people will decide that this is
too much hassle and just do it under the desk, with creative contracts
("we do not transfer this network, I just lease it to you for 10 years").
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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
