[ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders

[Robert Bonomi]

> Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:56:27 -0400
> From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders
>
> 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=20
> > http://www.bdb.com/~cliffb/bdb_netreg.jpg, you'll see a copy of my=20
> > address assignment which was issued in March of 1990.  Not being funny,=
> =20
>
> 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.
>
>
Sarcastic or not, you materially misrepresent what the letter says. :)

It says that *IF* you connect to ARPA, or DDN you musc go through a BBN
gateway, or the gateway of another ASN, and that some gateway to ARPA or
DDN (yours or that other ASNs) must speak EGP.

If you're *not* connecting to ARPA or DDN, then those restrictions are moot.

As it makes clear when it states that a _separate_ authorization_ is required
to connect to ARPA-Internet or DDN-Internet.


That aside, the simple fact is that neither ARIN, ICANN, or even the U.S.
Dept of Commerece have any way to *enforce* any restrictions on any use
of any arbitrary ranges of numbers for network addressing purposes, by
_anyone_.  

A coalition of network (and IX) operators could decide _tomorrow_ to ignore
*all* address-range "assignments" from the above-mentioned hierarchy, and
only route traffic from address-blocks "blessed" by some alternative source,
and there is *nothing* that the aforementioned 'authorities' could do to
prevent it.

The existing system works *ONLY* because of 'voluntary co-operation', because
'enlightened self-interest' indicates, *presently*,  that cooperation with 
those agencies is desirable.

In that environment, 'coercion', or 'force' is simply *not* a practical
approach.  Offend _enough_ people, and they'll 'take their ball, go home, and
start heir _own_ game.'   There's the poor 'referee' standing all alone there
on the empty field, with no players, and no audience -- he can make whatever 
'rules' he wants, but nobody is paying attention. 

Persuasion' is the only _usable_ tool.

Now, if/when the time comes that major network operators 'cannot' get additional
address-space assignments -they- need, because of a lack of 'unassigned'
address-space, *AND* there are significant blocks of 'unannounced' space,
one *will* see operators starting to use that space, regardless of what 
the 'authorities' decree. 

The end result will be a 'We'll guarantee you can talk to _our_ customers,
and that *our* customers can talk to you, using these addresses, we cannot
guarantee what other networks will do with traffic to/from this address-space.
end-users may have to buy access from _multiple_ carriers to ensure connectivity
to all their customers, and vice versa.

One *cannot* 'legislate' this end-game out of existence.  One cannot *prevent*
it from occuring.  The _best_ one can do is offer a 'better alternative' and
'pray' that enough people adopt it to keep the endgame from reaching crisis
proportions.

The _only_ tool available is 'persuasion'.