Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
Hi Philip, Thanks for your comment. Philip Smith wrote:Hi Toshi,I certainly believe that this policy proposal needs to be implemented if APNIC is to remain in its position of registering the use of IPv4 address resources. As we all know, IPv4 address space is already "bought" and "sold" commercially, so this is a first step at actuallyAre you reffering to the case of company merger of acquisition, or actual address trading?legitimising these transfers. Transfers without records of these transfers makes it harder for ISPs to trust prefix announcements.Do you think if this policy was implemented those who traded unlegitimately would confess and register that transfer to DB? Similarly, will those who trade the address space really declare that under this policy?I do not know. If you (or proposal author) have any thought on the incentive to register it to DB from source/recipient point of view,I would appreciate it, in order to understand this proposal's effectiveness.
The incentive to register the transfer exists for both the source of the transfer and the recipient.
For the recipient, unless the transfer is registered by the registry the recipient has no way of demonstrating to anyone that the address space is now controlled by them. The registry details point to the previous party, the source of the transfer. This means that it would be challenging to prove to a potential upstream or peer that the address space that is announced is really theirs to announce, and to potential customers that the addresses that are being used are legitimate addresses. If the address space was listed in any spam black list the lack of any change of registry details would make the task of convincing the BL maintainers that the status of the address has changed with the transfer would also be harder. The recipient also has a strong motive to prevent the source from attempting to transfer the address a second time to a third party. If the registry details continue to point to the source as the current holder of the address then the source can attempt further transactions on the same address space, and noone is any wiser that the transfer is fraudulent. And if the recipient ever wanted to transfer the address at a later date, then without the registry details referring to them as the current address holder then subsequent transfers would be challenging. So as far as I can see the recipient has a strong motive to have the transfer registered.
From the source's point of view a recognised transfer is of higher value than an unrecognised transfer. Potential address purchasers can be sought openly and the value of the transfer can be realized more effectively - i.e. the source has the ability to realize the full current value of the transfer in an open situation.
regards, Geoff