Nice work Ron

Fri Jan 22 10:52:37 UTC 2021

Not at all.

The "top" mandate of any RIR, in terms or resource allocation, is what the policies say.

The document that you linked is just a "guide" and unfortunately, unless I missed it, the document doesn't have a "publication date", but I bet is several years old. Further to that is authored by NIC.BR, it can have mistakes. LACNIC only did the English translation.

As we all know, the policies in all the RIRs evolve. The only valid document in terms of policies, in any RIR, is the *last version* of the policy manual (or equivalent web pages).

If you look at the LACNIC policy manual at https://www.lacnic.net/680/2/lacnic/policy-manual-[v214---24_07_2020], it clearly states that the official source is the Spanish version:

"This document and/or information was originally written in Spanish, the official language of Uruguay, the country where LACNIC is legally incorporated and whose laws and regulations LACNIC must meet. Likewise, unofficial information and/or documents are also written in Spanish, as this is the language in which most of LACNIC's collaborators and officers work and communicate. We do our best to ensure that our translations are reliable and serve as a guide for our non-Spanish-speaking members. However, discrepancies may exist between the translations and the original document and/or information written in Spanish. In this case, the original text written in Spanish will always prevail."

Regarding the resource transfer that you mention, it will follow the transfer policy (2.3.2.18 - IPv4 address transfers) and there will be checks in both RIRs (source and destination), depending on the policies of each one. There is not a single answer to your example, we will need to see if is LACNIC to LACNIC (intra-RIR, and in that case the 50% usage in the region rule is sustained) or if it is from LACNIC to another RIR (inter-RIR, then it will not depend anymore on the LACNIC rules - after the transfer, but the destination RIR).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

El 22/1/21 11:37, "NANOG en nombre de Masataka Ohta" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es at nanog.org en nombre de mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> escribió:

    JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:

    > No, this is not correct. LACNIC policies, state:

    that LACNIC has contradicting statements is a problem
    of LACNIC and you can not say others that the statement
    of your choice is the one others must follow.

     > (look at the Spanish version, English seems not updated)

    If there is a reservation statement such as "English
    version is just informational and not authentic" or
    "Certain restrictions may apply. See xxxxx for details."
    in PDF I quoted, your point could have been valid.

    Moreover,

    > The numbering resources under the stewardship of LACNIC must be
    > distributed among organizations legally constituted within its
    > service region [COBERTURA] and mainly *serving networks and services
    > operating in this region. External clients connected directly to main
    > infrastructure located in the region are allowed.
    > 
    > *“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%.
    requirement of such locality is, these days, seemingly
    badly impractical and attempt to enforce it will likely
    to be considered invalid.

    For example, what if someone sells part of IP addresses assigned
    from LACNIC to someone else performing business outside of
    LACNIC region? If there is no restriction, it means locality
    requirement is effectively invalidated.

    						Masataka Ohta

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.