[ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Cliff Bedore wrote:
> officially discuss address assignments.  If you look at 
> http://www.bdb.com/~cliffb/bdb_netreg.jpg, you'll see a copy of my 
> address assignment which was issued in March of 1990.  Not being funny, 

I want to thank you for posting the letter.  I suspect more than a
few people have lost their letter, and even if they have it haven't
bothered to scan it in.  For those who didn't get a network in 1990
this is a valuable part of history.

I'd also like to show you what ARIN brings to the table.

I'm sure you continue to reach the ARPA-Internet and DDN-Internet
through a BBN supplied gateway so you're in compliance with this
letter.  Do you connect to a core gateway directly, or are you still
running EGP?

Humm, I'm guessing not; and of course I'm being totally sarcastic.

If I were a legacy holder, I'd be worried.  If I take the position
you outlined (RFC's after I got my netblock don't apply, etc) then
I have a great peice of paper allowing me to connect to the
ARPA-Internet, or the DDN-Internet, or the NSF-Internet....none of
which exist anymore.  After all, the commercial Internet came after
all that, so the legacy assignment must not apply to that use,
right?

But if I take the opposite position, that the letter carries forward
and applies to today's commercial internet, then by extensions
shouldn't all current RFC's under which the network is operated
applied?  Don't you automatically get sucked into RFC 2050?  How
can you pick and choose which parts of the modernized Internet
apply?

Most importantly, if someone, anyone were to go to court on either
point of view it's likely the court would decide which applies.
Which one would you prefer happens?  You're not going to get any
choice, unless by chance you're the one with the lawsuit.  What
would happen to you if the court ruled your legacy assignment
doesn't mean squat in today's Internet?  What if they ruled you had
to comply with all current ARIN practices, including utilization
requirements?

However, by signing an RSA with ARIN you can get a current, up to
date piece of paper, with real contractual terms going forward
that back up a claim that the space is for your use.  Even if some
other random person out there sues and establishes one way or the
other how legacy space should be treated you have no risk, being
covered and up to date.  You know what rules you have to follow,
and you have a document that the community agrees supports your
ability to use the address space

That's the real reason legacy holders should want to update to a
current agreement.  It takes away risk.  It's been said here many
times, no one really knows what legacy holders are entitled to,
because it was never written down.  If you have a business with a
risk assessment group tell that to them, and see how they react.

I think if ARIN and the legacy holders can find a way to find each
other and get RSA's signed it's a win for both parties.  Both now
clearly know that their relationship is current and what it covers.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070708/1e21a6f6/attachment.sig>