[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):GlobalPolicyfor IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion- LastCall (textrevised)

[George Bonser]

> >
> I don't think that's what anyone was talking about here.
> 

Right, but the thought occurred to me while reading.  I think there
needs to be a distinction made between "legacy space" and "legacy
holders".  The implied agreement (or lack thereof) was with the holder,
not with the space.  Once the address space leaves the legacy holder,
that legacy agreement should (in my opinion) no longer hold beyond one
transfer ... the transfer from the original legacy holder.  After that,
any transfer of that space should meet current community policy.  Maybe
I am confused by the language being used by people but I see a lot of
references to "legacy space" when I believe the space itself isn't
relevant.


> To the best of my knowledge, No such thing as far as ARIN is
> concerned. If the original holder of the space isn't holding it any
> more,
> then, it is abandoned.

Ok, that is what was confusing me by the language being used.  I have
seen people throw out an address range and someone says "that is legacy
space, there isn't anything we can do".  I just want to make sure there
IS something we can do if it isn't the legacy HOLDER using the space.

 
> There is no provision and has never been any provision for a transfer
> to occur without subjecting the recipient of the transferred resources
> to an RSA for those resources.

Ok, I was confused by the language people have been using.  My
apologies.