[ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders

[James Hess]

I'll agree that force can't make providers to follow a specific
policy, that is, in
the face of address exhaustion, unless they have signed some agreement that
requires them to, as some might have.


> 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.

Exactly.  The effect of that final note is that the letter itself does
not appear to
actually give  authorization to connect and use the numbers on either
of the two
networks.

Presence in the registry and authorization to connect the numbers are
two different
things, that came from different authorities.

If you weren't to follow whatever basic requirements were imposed at
the time by the
relevant authorities, it is very possible connecting the numbers would
not have been
authorized, even if the registry had set aside those numbers.

Or if you stopped following whatever rules were required,
authorization to continue to
connect the numbers could have been revoked by the provider (I.E. the
ISP may have
refused to renew service).


Similarly, the registry could have notified you and de-assigned those
numbers in their
database later if the determined they hadn't been used; the letter
doesn't promise
they wouldn't, it only states that "this is the new class and network
number for X
network," i.e. we have currently given this network some numbers.

That statement alone doesn't promise there will be no future renumbering or
removal from a database.


Very likely the separate authority allowing a user to connect those
numbers would
examine the registry database, so they would have the assurance of uniqueness
for their network that the registry provides.

Prior to choosing to allow you to connect the numbers.

However, yes, the option was always there for them to prefer a
different registry
over IANA, or to allow numbers to be connected, even if there was no
registry entry,
or even to refuse to authorize connecting the numbers, even if the they had
been registered.

If you signed a contract with your provider assuring you could
permanently connect,
then, perhaps the use of that addressing is permanent for that
provider's network.

However, if the other providers they interconnect with don't always
continue to agree
(about authorizing your provider to connect those numbers), then the
effective scope of
that assignment might indeed be less than world-wide.

That's where the registry, and even ARIN is providing a service to
even legacy holders.
It serves as a publicly visible record, that X organization was the
first to be assigned
and to keep assigned the address space.

In case of different providers sending conflicting information, it
helps the rest of the
world determine which connection of the numbers (which route) is more
legitimate,
and possibly continue to communicate with you...

Without this resource, the legacy holder may be more likely to lose
the use of their
addresses to whoever else is trying to use the addresses

(the providers with conflicting connections not having the convenience
of a registry to
decide who should get to use the address and if something should get
blocked or not).

--
-J