[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIRTransfers -Shepherd's Inquiry
You've been saying this stuff for years, but where is a section 12
reclamation of legacy space you can point to where the reclamation took
place due to the original registrant selling his addresses?
Where is any reclamation of legacy space which is not associated with actual
hijacking, voluntary return, or dissolution? Spamming or child porn? Any
The bankruptcy judge, need I remind you, found that Nortel had the exclusive
right to transfer addresses which were allocated to other companies, and for
which no ARIN transfer had ever taken place, and this was after all the
companies involved were bankrupt. I find this much more convincing than
allusions to RFCs and the writings of Jon Postel. Now if Mr. Postel had
actually created an agreement which could be legally construed as a
contract, you might have something. Absent that, you have only bluster which
grows more outdated each month.
As a test example, I was back at my alma mater last June and I spoke with
one of the campus computer engineers, who told me although he had 16 million
ip addresses to work with, most of the campus is Natted. Do you think I
should open up a ticket and inform ARIN that they should institute a section
12 review of MIT? Would you like to confront ARIN with that knowledge and
see if it nets the free pool a sizeable chunk of a /8?
ARIN controls Whois, I'm pretty sure that is what John Curran will say. ARIN
is within its legal rights to change Whois data in whatever way it pleases.
If ARIN wants to make Whois even more irrelevant, they can take the course
you prescribe, but since they have not done this, ever, the threat of
reclamation of legacy space is a nonstarter.
John Curran referencing ex post facto transfer requests demonstrates that
unreported transfers have occurred where the IP addresses worked fine after
they were transferred to another party.
If ARIN has no control over routing, and no legal ability to stop ip address
sales, their leverage is little. If the benefits of the transfers outweigh
the little costs which ARIN can apply, the transfers will happen.
> Hi Owen,
> I don't think ARIN will be confronted with anything, I think they will be
When I say confronted, I mean becomes aware of. There are numerous ways in
which it is very likely ARIN will become aware of such things.
> And I don't think ARIN has any rights to revoke or reclaim legacy space
> unless they have an agreement with the rights holder which gives them that
You are incorrect, sir. ARIN is the successor registry to the earlier
registries for this region. Those registries ALL issued the address space on
basis that it was issued to a particular organization for a particular
purpose and should be returned when one or both of those criteria was no
> Clearly they have no additional rights under section 12 to reclaim legacy
> space, that's explicit in the NRPM.
The words in NRPM 12 were chosen very carefully. The word additional is just
that. We added no ability to reclaim legacy space, but, the existing
> So you would have to demonstrate some other source of that reclamation
Q.E.D. See above.
> It's not in any agreement between ARIN and the legacy holder, and it's not
> part of any agreement the legacy allocants had with ARIN's precursors.
> Where does it come from?
It is actually part of policies documented in earlier RFCs and in the
writings of Jon Postel as described above.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> Cc: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>; "arin ppml" <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 -
> Inter-RIRTransfers -Shepherd's Inquiry
>> My argument is that we cannot abandon the whole IP market thing. It is
>> out of our control, because the limited power we have is in Whois and
>> reverse naming.
>> We can't force network operators to route or not to route certain
>> addresses, and I see no stomach at ARIN for challenging legacy transfers
>> by revoking and reissuing their space.
> Like speculation, just because you don't see it does not mean that it is
> not there.
> I believe that confronted with a legacy transfer that happened off the
> books ARIN will go through the following steps (John, feel free to correct
> me if I'm wrong):
> 1. Attempt to contact the original holder of the resources
> If they acknowledge the transfer, see if the recipient and original holder
> will work to
> complete the transaction under NRPM 8.
> If they do not acknowledge the transfer, let them know their space has
> been hijacked
> and encourage them to take appropriate action.
> If they are unreachable, work with the recipient to see if sufficient
> exists to complete an 8.2 or 8.3 transfer and attempt to do so.
> 2. If the original resource holder is unreachable and a transfer cannot be
> as described above, I believe ARIN will reclaim the space as abandoned and
> the appropriate steps to clean and reissue it.
> 3. If the original resource holder is unreachable or uncooperative and the
> "recipient" refuses to cooperate,
> I believe ARIN is also likely to proceed with reclamation under NRPM 12.
>> So to think we have any significant power to prevent the rise of an IPv4
>> market is naive. What we should do is acknowledge it and take the steps
>> to transition ARIN from an arbiter of who gets addresses to a
>> title-agency whose routing authority is respected enough to handle the
>> challenges facing registration in the post-exhaust world.
> Can we prevent the rise of a market? Probably not. Can we apply a
> needs-basis test to that market and regulate the redistribution of
> addresses through that market by applying reasonable stewardship policies
> governing the source and recipient conduct in the market? Yes.
> There is a lot of room between the extremes of "ignore the market
> altogether" and "acknowledge the market and let it become a free-for-all
> with no rules".
> I realize that you favor the latter extreme. I favor something towards the
> former, but much closer to the middle.