[ppml] Keeping the story straight

On Thu, 31 May 2007, Tony Hain wrote:

> Heather Schiller wrote:
>>> .....
>>>
>>> Somebody needs to figure out the real story, then try to keep it
>> straight.
>>> Tony
>>>
>>
>> I can't tell from your email if you want:
>> - ARIN to guarantee routability
>> - not make a formal statement on routability (thus implying anything or
>> nothing)
>> - You want ARIN/RIR's to declare/refine their function/mission
>> statement
>> - or you just want to ask a bunch of rhetorical questions to get people
>> thinking and you may or may not have your own opinion?
>>
>> (..and I'm not intending to be snide.. it's just that sometimes email
>> is a
>> lousy method of communication and I really can't tell)
>
> I was pointing out the difference in attitude, depending on who is arguing
> what point. On the one hand people take the high-road and say ARIN does not
> talk about routability, while on the other people want to refuse space to

  ..well it's actually in the formal written policies.. which is why I 
said, if you want to change what people can argue or quote then you have 
to change the policy.

> people unless it is 'routed in the public Internet'. I would actually prefer
> to remove all discussion about routability and just talk about managing the
> IPv6 pool.
>
> People should be able to get a PI block and a ULA-C block, and what they do
> with those is not ARIN's concern as long as they maintain their membership.
> It really doesn't matter if people don't think they need both, if the
> requestor thinks they need it and their membership is current, give it to
> them. What happens after that is not an ARIN policy concern.
>
> The flip-flopping that goes on about routability is what has to stop. If the
> majority wants to only worry about routed space, I am fine with that, but
> you can't have it both ways like it is now.
>

Ok..  I think that the 'routability not guaranteed' is a legal CYA on 
ARIN's part.  Their way of saying, you can get space from us, but we have 
no authority to order anyone to accept the route or the traffic that comes 
from it.  Maybe it doesn't belong in NRPM but the RSA.. don't know if or 
how that would change things.  But I imagine a lot of legal folks at 
providers wouldn't be happy with a policy that required folks to route RIR 
allocated space.. the alternative would be removing it altogether, and 
again I bet that creates some legal problems.

  --Heather
  /not a lawyer.. just work with them a lot/




> Tony
>
>