[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

> 
>> Indeed, I cannot posit any situation in which it would be of any appreciable benefit to me ever, full stop.
> 
> As a small block holder (/24 IIRC?) that is involved in ARIN policy discussion, you may be correct.
> 
>> I'm left to wildly speculate that it would only really benefit someone looking to carve out a new registry business model for themselves.
> 
> The immediate benefit would be for large block holders (with excess resources) to monetize their addresses, and for buyers and/or lessors who need these excess addresses.
> 
There is a framework for them to do that in the current policy, so, I do not understand why you think
this would change that situation in any meaningful way.

> In the near future there may be benefits in terms of RPKI services, Loc/ID split services (routing facilitation), and other advanced services that could be developed by a commercial routing registry.
> 
Nothing in ARIN policy or practice prevents those things today.

While ARIN runs a routing registry (ARIN IRRDB), that is not particularly coupled with the ARIN PDP or
with address registrations in the ARIN databases for uniqueness. I am unsure as to whether the ARIN
routing registry is subject to the ARIN Policy process, but, in any case, there are already many routing
registries operated independent of ARIN.

> Prop 136 would open up these opportunities for legacy holders.  Subsequent policy would be needed to apply the opportunity to the rest of ARIN (RSA-covered) community.
> 
So far you haven't stated any opportunities that don't exist in current policy, so, perhaps this is more a
case of misunderstanding the current policy framework than of proposing a solution?

Owen