[ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources

[John Santos]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Dave Mohler wrote:

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf
> Of
> > Andrew Dul
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:34 AM
> > To: Keith W. Hare;
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy
> Resources
> > 
> > >  -------Original Message-------
> > >  From: Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com>
> > >  Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy
> Resources
> > >  Sent: 10 Jul '07 07:01
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  > -----Original Message-----
> > >  > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> > >  > Behalf Of Andrew Dul
> > >  > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 5:05 PM
> > >  > To: Edward Lewis;
> > >  > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy
> > >  > Resources
> > >  >
> > >  ...
> > >  >
> > >  > I agree that creating barriers in general is not a good idea.
> > >  >  I would certainly like to see ARIN do an outreach
> > >  > specifically to legacy holders.  My attempt with this policy
> > >  > was to create an incentive (loss of current in-addr service)
> > >  > to encourage the establishing of a formal relationship and
> > >  > the ongoing relationship that would help keep the records as
> > >  > up-to-date.  In addition I see additional incentives in
> > >  > affirming an organizations right to use number resources
> > >  > granted prior to the formation of ARIN.
> > >  >
> > >  I currently see two barriers to establishing a formal relationship
> with
> > >  ARIN for our /24 legacy address allocation.
> > >
> > >  1.  I don't see how to accomplish establishing a formal
> relationship --
> > >  the informaton on how to accomplish this is not easily available.
> > >
> > >  2.  I am unlikely to sign an agreement that does not protect our
> use of
> > >  our /24 address allocation.
> > >
> > 
> > I hope that both of these barriers are lowered by this policy
> proposal.
> > 
> > 1: The proposal specifically asks ARIN to do an outreach to legacy
> holders,
> > publish how to establish those formal relationships, and sets an 18
> month
> > time frame to accomplish the outreach project.
> > 2: The proposal also specifically calls for a version of the RSA which
> > would protect the usage of assignments for legacy holders and
> basically
> > ignore utilization requirements on legacy assignments as long as an
> > organization does not request additional address space from ARIN.
> > 
> > Andrew
> > 
> [Dave Mohler] I'd like to see that the discussion of "request[ing]
> additional address space from ARIN" doesn't add a barrier to legacy
> users' movement toward IPv6.  It is reasonable to consider that requests
> for additional IPv4 space might prompt a review of the utilization of
> the legacy IPv4 assignment.  However, I would hope that a request for
> IPv6 space from a legacy holder would only cause review of that request
> the same as if the user had no previous IPv4 allocation.
> 
> -- dave

Dave -

I have a partially composed response that basically says the same thing,
in about 20 times as many words...  Anyway, I agree...

I think point 2 should say "as long as the organization does not
request additional *v4* address space from ARIN."  How to handle
IPv6 requests from legacy users is a different issue from how to
handle v4 requests from the same users.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539