Hi Sascha & Daniel, The reason for using the term "scares resource", is because we can't/shouldn't use the term "depleted'..
If one would use the term "Depleted' the NCC might say that the pool isn't completely empty yet.. so it isn't depleted yet.. Which would mean that there is, until it is really empty, no transfer restriction. ( that is a different discussion.. ) The community suggested in the last 2 RIPE meetings that the transfer restrictions should not apply for 32 bits ASN and IPv6.. The policy proposal states : > 2.2 Transfer Restrictions > Scarce resources, which are understood as those resources that are allocated > or assigned by the RIPE NCC on a restricted basis (such as IPv4 or 16-bit > ASNs), cannot be transferred for 24 months from the date the resource > was received by the resource holder. The Impact Analyses states : > Holding Period for Scarce Resources > The RIPE NCC understands “scarce resources” to include IPv4 PA, IPv4 PI and > 16-bit AS Numbers. If the community declares other resources to be scarce, > the list of resources for which the holding period will apply will be > adjusted accordingly. The policy proposal dictates what a scares resource is (after community discussion in the last 2 RIPE meetings) and it is the policy that is leading here.. The Impact Analyses of the RIPE NCC, is what the RIPE NCC thinks what is written and intended by the policy.. and they are re-hashing what we did and how additional 'future' scares resources might need to be defined in the future. If the community declares other resources to be scarce, the list of resources for which the holding period will apply will be adjusted accordingly.. And as that is a policy change, it should go through the PDP process. I think that what you are asking is what is already in the proposal and what you are looking for in a procedure, is already what is the used process ... If not, what are we missing ? Regards, Erik Bais
