ARIN /8s ?

> >Try substituting the "right to use" in lieu of "ownership" of an IP
> >address. 
> >
> 
> The 'right to use' an  IP address should probably be restated
> to indicate the 'ability to have a route announced', or something
> similar.

A while back there was a thread on this list about whether an allocation
implied that the number was routable (I guess that means that people would
accept the routing announcements.)

That kinda got rejected.

Perhaps a better formulation is that an allocation gives one the right to
exclude others from announcing the number.

> In any event, I would suggest that either of these is similar
> to the text imprinted on your credit card: "This card is the
> property of the issuing authority. It must be surrendered to
> the issuing authority....'

Even a credit card company can't pull back the card on a whim.

But I don't think we are talking about a net run on arbitrary, sudden
revocations or changes in assignments.

If we just lay out some ground rules about what kind of commitments and
mutual obligations go along with an allocation then I think we will have
avoided a lot of problems (and hopefully derailed any excessive outside
regulation.)  There's no technology there, just words.  Although with the
right words we may be able to get people to do good things like "trade up"
an old block so that they can get a bigger, contiguous block rather than
demand a separate additional, but non-aggregatable allocation.

		--karl--