Hi Jordi, All,
I was doing some googling and easily found the references on
ARIN/LACNIC/AFRINIC websites...
====
https://www.lacnic.net/1022/2/lacnic/legacy-resources
"Transferred legacy resources will no longer be considered as such"
====
https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/legacy/services/
"When legacy number resources are transferred to another organization
through a specified transfer (NRPM 8.3 and 8.4), the recipient organization
is required to sign an RSA/LRSA, and the resources being transferred will
not retain their legacy status."
====
https://afrinic.net/resources/transfers
"Applicable to Transfer Recipient Transferred IPv4 legacy resources will
no longer be regarded as legacy resources."
====
However, regarding APNIC, from what i read on
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#8.3.-Transfer-of-Historical-Internet-resources
it is not 100% clear to me that the transferred blocks lose their
legacy/historical status.
Can you list which policy proposals within each RIR that resulted in the
above...?
...so we may have some clue about the timeline of such changes -- which
may have been passed under the legacy holders radar...
Additionally, maybe someone involved with transfers on a daily basis can
comment if a block with legacy status has less/equal/more value than
non-legacy blocks???
Cheers,
Carlos
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019, Michiel Klaver via address-policy-wg wrote:
Hi Jordi,
Maybe you can provide any documentation available from the other RIRs about
their rationale why they implemented this kind of policy? Maybe they have
some strong arguments we are missing here?
Gert Doering wrote at 2019-07-16 10:46:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
Again, please consider, if it is good that we are the only RIR not doing
so. I don't think that's good.
If this is the main argument ("I changed this in all the other RIRs,
and now *you* are the only ones stubbornly refusing to follow my
all-the-others-are-doing-this argument") - it's a somewhat weak one.
You have failed to bring forward any reason for changing things, except
"it is unfair that there is a difference"
(without detailing what exactly the unfairness would be, who would
be disadvantaged by this, exactly, and why they would be affected
positively by this proposal) - and
"all the other RIRs have changed this!"
which is both not very compelling.
I could also not see anyone speak up in a supportive way, so I'd consider
this "sufficiently discussed, and no support to go for a formal proposal".
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
