[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: transfers doco
Geoff Huston wrote:
o Can a resource holder unilaterally "return" a resource to the resource
issuer?
Doesn't a "yes" follow from the current policies that all say something to the
effect that a resource should be returned once it is no longer needed?
o Can a resource holder specify the entity to whom the resource should be
subsequently allocated? This would appear to be a matter that is up to
the discretion of the Issuer. According to the Issuer's policies this may
or may not be permitted.
This implies that a resource transfer function is one that is logically
operated by the Issuer, that reflects the transfer between clients of the
Issuer's resources.
Looking at our policies, it is clear that we need a new one to cover transfers.
What are the desireable properties of a transfer function?
o one that requires the permissions of the resource disposer, the resource
acquirer and the common resource Issuer in order to commence.
What happens for a transfer between LIRs in different areas? In that case,
IANA would be the common resource issuer, not the RIRs. (And I doubt that
they want to have anything to do with this).
So-far, we've assumed that for cross-RIR transfers, the transfer would
be coordinated between disposer, the disposer's RIR, the acquirer and
the acquirer's RIR.
o A resource transfer would commence by having the resource disposer
deposit a signed intent to sell, and with the resource acquirer's signed
intent to acquire a listed resource also desposited.
---------------
Party A is willing to acquire resource x.y from Party B on or before
the closing date: [date], subject to the completion of associated
terms
and conditions [...]
Who is going to specify the terms and conditions? I can imagine that the
RIRs have a minimum set of requirements for those (for example, we've
so-far assumed that A will become a member if they aren't).
o Can the buyer or the seller cancel the trasnaction once its initiatied?
(I suspect not, as the cancellation can in and of itself introduce
further issues about the validity of the transaction.)
Suppose A or B does not comply with the conditions of the sale, then I
think it should be possible for the other party to stop the transaction.
. . .
Very wild idea: Would there be mileage in, instead of transferring the
right to use a.b.c.d/x, we'd transfer the right to use a /x and have
the RIRs revoke and assign a /x from their pools?
For example, if a LIR-A in .nl sells a /24 to LIR-B in .au, then the
NCC revokes the /24 from A (and puts it back in its unused pool) and
APNIC assigns one from its unused pool. This, of course, won't always
be possible when v4 is almost fully used, but it would save us doing
an ERX-like transfer when it is.
Henk
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--"
# Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment."
