[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] [Fwd: ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks]
On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:40 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 1:01 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>> I oppose this policy proposal.
>> IF this were to be successful, the time to do it was 2-4 years ago.
> Maybe. But I think IPv4 exhaustion motivates a number of thoughts now that people weren't motivated by 2-4 years ago.
Panic often provides motivations that don't manifest themselves absent
a rush of adrenaline. The USA-PATRIOT act is proof that they do not
lead to good policy.
>> Given the policy / political / legal uncertainty of what the ultimate
>> outcome will be of answering the question: "for values of 'own' that
>> include financial compensation for use of them, who 'owns' legacy IP
>> space?" ...
> This is a fundamental question, yes. It's not directly dealt with in prop 133, but it is an issue related to 133's motivation.
Well, prop. 133 certainly seeks to (or accidentally) limits the possible answers that ARIN can select in its response to that question.
> I'd argue that in the near future, some people will need IPv4 addresses less while others will be increasingly willing to pay for IPv4 addresses. It doesn't matter how absurd the notion of addresses as property might appear on the surface (I assume all intellectual property, property rights, etc, feel absurd to some people until they're established by law) the ability to route IP addresses has value.
The usual disclaimer: Speaking ONLY as and for myself:
ARIN has no direct control over the ability to route IP addresses whatsoever.
If you want to control that, you should be talking to ISPs. They run routers and
configure them. ARIN does not.
ARIN policy is about registration of IP numbers to organizations and the
integrity and fairness of that registration database. There is specifically
no warranty from ARIN that registration of a number has anything to do
with the ability to place it in someone else's routing table or not.
While, coincidentally, many ISPs choose to recognize the ARIN database
as a valuable source of registration information that is used in their
decision making process about who to accept or reject a route from,
it is only one of many inputs into that process in most cases and the
ISP is absolutely free to ignore ARIN and the AIRN database altogether.
Even if you somehow manage to establish the idea that prefix routing
rights are somehow a form of property, I'm not sure what that set of
rights would have to do with the ARIN registration database or
>> The only part of this that makes sense now is to ask
>> large-enough-to-matter legacy holders what their usage is and to ask
>> them to renumber if the answer is low and the effort reasonable, in
>> the name of the common good. There's no downside to asking for that.
>> Trying to force the issue seems like unnecessary and unproductive
> I don't think that we can recover enough resources to help the overall community, no matter how we approach the recovery process. But we might be able to find enough resources to help those that are willing to pay for them. And holders might be more willing to provide resources if they're compensated.
There is a process available for that today.
> Admittedly, prop 133 doesn't deal with this topic directly. But it would open the door to allow legacy resources alternative governance, market policy, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...