[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication of LegacyResources
Steve Bertrand
steveb at eagle.ca
Thu Jul 26 11:46:43 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication of LegacyResources
- Next message: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication of LegacyResources
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> This is why I don't believe that legacy holders have any right to the > addresses which they hold unless they can meet ARIN's current rules for > justification of address space. And as we get closer to the IPv4 > exhaustion point, this will become very important. I don't technically agree with this. AFAICT, ARIN has about as much right to the legacy holder's IP address space as the legacy holder does. Trying to coerce legacy holders to give rights over for what they have had before ARIN existed via bullying and threats is unacceptable. Even speaking of it will push legacy holders farther away to ever wanting to hear any positive methods laid out in the future. > Imagine that ARIN denies a new allocation to a member who has complied > with ARIN rules for years. The request is denied because ARIN has just > run out of addresses. However, there are still many legacy blocks whose > holders have never justified their use. The disgruntled ARIN member > decides to sue ARIN and points out to the courts that ARIN is materially > damaging their business and is refusing to allocate address blocks which > have never been reviewed and justified with ARIN. I suspect that the > courts will side, more or less, with the member who has worked with the > rules over many years, and against the legacy holder who has never shown > any justification for holding their allocation. I would think that some form of grandfather clause may come into play here, but IANAL. If you found $1M in the street and claimed it as your own, I would suspect no court on earth would make you give me any of it if I sued you because I have undue hardship, and can't pay my bills. Just because 'he has more than me but doesn't use it', doesn't afford me the right to take what isn't mine. The following two statements essentially are equivalent, however, I would stop reading and cringe in anger at the first, and be more apt to continue reading with the second: "we will pull your rDNS records if you don't sign this RSA" "by signing this RSA, we can assure you that your continued use of your IP space will remain functional with no future unforseen operational failure (rDNS removal etc)". Steve
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication of LegacyResources
- Next message: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication of LegacyResources
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list