[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 and ARIN-prop-172 - Legacy Resources

Jo Rhett jrhett at netconsonance.com
Mon Jun 18 16:13:16 EDT 2012


I would like to say that I feel exactly the same as Owen on all three issues labeled below. There is no need or basis for creating more out-of-compliance networks. I do not believe that there is any significant risk from people choosing to out of the system. Or rather, I do not believe that their choice to do so would affect anybody other than themselves and their clients.

I have proposed we kill off both of these. Barring that, I am adamantly against both of them.

On Jun 15, 2012, at 1:14 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>  - We may be able to add some sort of grandfather clause to allow fewer restrictions on the 8.3 transfer of legacy addresses (and a proper definition of such addresses).  However, I don't believe that such exceptions should themselves be transitive.  That is to say, the recipient of an 8.3 transfer needs to sign an RSA and become subject to all of the policies in the NRPM.
> 
> I would absolutely oppose this. Once resources are transferred from 8.3, their status should be no different than if they were returned to ARIN and subsequently issued to another organization in two unrelated transactions.
> 
>>  - I could see an argument for exempting an 8.3 transfer recipient from needs justification on the initial transfer, but IMO that exemption would need to be time-limited, to perhaps a year, after which time the recipient would be subject to all ARIN policies.
> 
> I would absolutely oppose this as well for the same reasons. There is no reason whatsoever to special case these transfers in such a manner and it is not fair to other resource holders or the community in general to do so.
> 
>> I think the underlying motivation here is to encourage holders of legacy allocations who wish to transfer their space to do so in a way that keep ARIN's database up-to-date.  In some cases, that may be an easier sell if some restrictions are relaxed.  The supporters of ARIN-prop-171 may not agree, but I would argue that a second goal is to encourage such transfers to occur in such a way that the addresses being transferred are no longer considered legacy after the transfer is complete.
> 
> I think that the combination of RPKI and the desire to have cooperating ISPs be willing to carry the routes is more than enough motivation here. I do not believe that there is a need to grant further special treatment and I would oppose doing so. This would be one more step towards turning ARIN from consensus driven policy towards merely being an auction house.
> 
> Owen

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120618/b4998654/attachment.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list