[arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:38 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Keith W. Hare; arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
>assignments?
>
>
>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> This disingenuous story ignores the real issue.
>
>Hardly disingenuous. I think it mirrors a large number of Legacy
>experiences.
>

In that case the answer to question #1 would be NO - thus the entire
discussion would be pointless as there would not be enough IPv4 resources
tied up in legacy allocations as to make any difference in the grand
scheme of things.

>> The rest of the IPv4 world has been out there doing their thing - and
>> their thing involved watching out for your interests.  If they hadn't
>> been doing this, your block could have likely been routed by someone
>> else somewhere else and you would have lost the use of it.  I'm sure
>> if that happened you would have suddenly 'discovered' ARIN real fast.
>
>You've been watching out for Legacy interests?  I don't think so.
>Legacy's made this sandbox. You are the one playing in _our_ sandbox,
>with toys that _we_ made.
>

I'm the one PAYING for the sandbox to be maintained, YOU are NOT.  Thus,
it's MY sandbox.  I and the
rest of my paying friends could simply withdraw from the sandbox and create
our own sandbox that doesen't even recognize you at all if we felt like
doing so.  You would then keep
your sandbox and figure out how to pay for it yourself, with you and the
rest
of your non-paying friends.

The fact that you feel the legacy holders should get a free ride forever
is just immature irresponsibility.  The legacy holders got a free ride in
the beginning because the US taxpayers were paying for it.  Now, ARIN is.
Well someone needs to pay salaries of the people managing the list of IP's
That is precisely why the legacy holders free ride was discontinued with
IPv6.  If the legacy holders had some moral or ethical reason to get a
free ride forever, then they would have all gotten free IPv6 assignments.

Don't mistake the fact that the community has recognized that IPv4
assignments are going to be obsolete eventually, and thus is willing
to tolerate the legacy holders free ride with IPv4 until that happens,
for some sort of mandate
that the legacy holders are supposed to get a free ride.  If the IPv4
to IPv6 transition wasn't on the horizon, the legacy holders would be
paying now.

>Legacy's haven't just 'discovered ARIN'. We've always known who ARIN
>was, who the Internic was before that, and SRI before that. I think
>you've taken some comments a little too literally. It is true that
>Legacy's haven't been participating in ARIN, and so people like you have
>been bashing Legacy's with little rebuttal.

Bashing the legacy holders?  Hardly.  How is it bashing to state the
fact that someone isn't paying for something that is costing someone
else money?  Oh I forgot, in your OPPOSITE universe, freeloaders are
good, pluggers who pay for everything are bad.  Boy, you must get a
headache walking around on your head all day long.  Beats tinfoil
hats, I guess.

>
>Taking away just reverse DNS and electronic whois, but keeping
>registrations as-is, isn't going to fly.  Those are the only 'free
>services' that ARIN provides. BTW, even if Sprunk were right and ARIN
>didn't have obligation to provide those services, that still wouldn't
>fly:  Non-legacy's want to see reverse DNS for Legacy's and they want to
>see whois data for Legacy's.  These are just dumb ideas and stupid
>schemes.
>

Whatever.  I wasn't the one out there saying we should proactively do
this - as in shoot first and ask questions later.

But I certainly see value in removing legacy assignments and allocations
that ARE NOT IN USE.  And it is pretty easy to see if they are in use,
on my router, "show ip bgp xx.xx.xx.xx" works pretty well.

>
>This list is _your_ interest in trying to unlawfully take these
>resources for your own benefit.
>
>Standing against your scheme is the fact that it isn't legal. Legacy's
>have as much right to monetize these resources as you do.  MIT has the
>same right as British Telecom to monetize IP resources.  Legacy's have
>more right, if one could possibly have more right.
>

Taking a reasonable discussion and turning it into a religious rant
only serves the interests of the people who want to maintain the status
quo.  And if that is your goal then simply answer the damn question #1
I already proposed - are there significant enough IPv4 resources tied
up in legacy allocations to make a difference to IPv4 runout?  If not,
then this discussion is a waste of time.

Ted