[ppml] Dean Anderson, 130.105.0.0/16 and the future of the IPv4 Internet.

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> It's IANA's problem.  It's ARIN's problem.  It's DARPA and the DOD's
>>> problem.  It may turn out to be the courts problem, but most of all,
>>> it's the community's problem.  Should netblock ownership and routing
>>> slots descend into some sort of Mad Max type of future we're all
>>> going to loose, big time.  Secure routing is never going to work if
>>> we can't figure out who gets the certificate.
>>>
>> Actually, Leo, I think that paragraph may have hit on a good portion
>> of the solution:
>>
>> ARIN is not required to provide any NEW services to legacy holders
>> without an RSA.  I doubt anyone will dispute that.
>
> I dispute that. ARIN is required to perform the services that IANA has
> delegated to it.  Legacy services are part of that delegation. This is
> like saying ARIN has no obligation to cart the boxes of legacy records
> to a new office. Or to convert legacy records to a new electronic
> format.  Any service that required, ARIN is required to perform for
> everyone.
>
No... That's not what I'm saying at all.  Carting the boxes to a new
office would be part of an orderly transition to a new registrar/ 
registry.
I would agree that ARIN has that obligation.

As to new electronic format, that's more of a gray area, depending on
the purpose of the conversion.  If we were, for example (not that I  
think
we should do this) to convert from WHOIS to LDAP, then, yes, ARIN
would, indeed, be obliged to convert all records.

I'm saying that if ARIN starts offering services that were never offered
to legacy holders by the previous registries, ARIN is under no  
obligation
to provide those services to legacy holders unless they elect to  
subscribe
to such services by completing the appropriate process.
> I think you still fail to grasp that ARIN is an agent of IANA, that is
> to say, the US Government; That the records and assignments belong
> ultimately to the government, not to ARIN.
>
While I don't agree with your premise here, even if it were true, ARIN
would be an agent with specific responsibilities in that area.  Those
responsibilities do not include issuing certificates to legacy holders.
The mere fact that ARIN chooses to offer a new service to paying
customers does not oblige it to offer that same new service to legacy
holders free of charge.

>> If secure routing starts using those certificates and becomes  
>> popular,
>> then, the ability to get a certificate becomes a carrot for legacy
>> holders to sign an RSA.
>
> But, secure routing (of the sort you envision) is a pipedream.  The
> notion of mad-max advertisement of IP blocks is just nonsense.
> Advertising someone elses active block would be a civil and/or  
> criminal
> violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Wiretap Act. [as
> Chris Morrow discovered for advertising /22 masks to 198.3.136/21, and
> as Martin Hannigan quite nearly found out for advertising a route to
> Sanford Wallace's net block in 1996. If I hadn't met Hannigan at the
> Cambridge Brewing Company that night, I think he wouldn't have told
> Wallace that it was all an accident.]
>
We can agree to disagree on this.  While I agree with you about the
advertising, if the advertiser is not within the US, then, the US law  
about
what they are doing has little power over what they do.

[...more conspiracy theory rant deleted...]

>
> I don't think I'll be asking for a certificate. But I expect if ARIN
> offers certificate services, other Legacy holders might want
> certificates, and will be entitled to the same services as everyone
> else.
>
I see no reason that they would be entitled unless they choose to
pay for the service.
> BTW, Airports also have legacy issues, too. 50 and 99 year leases  
> given
> out years ago.  The legacy's always win on anything that just involves
> money.  Sure, build a new runway, and it might be necessary to tear  
> down
> a hangar.  But a lease is a lease, and you can't get out just because
> you want to charge more money.  Every once in a while someone will  
> try,
> though. Its best to get that item last on the agenda so you can leave
> early.
>
The legacy's don't always win where airports are concerned.  If they  
did,
Carmel Valley airport would still exist, Eastridge Mall wouldn't be  
sitting
at the end of 31L and 31R for KRHV, and we wouldn't have had a major
fight to keep EA from building a tall tower in the departure path for  
KSQL
runway 30.  Those are just the legacy issues I can think of near me with
regards to airports where the legacy had the potential to lose.  In the
case of Carmel Valley and KRHV, the legacy (airport) lost.  In the
case of KSQL, the legacy won.

There were also such lease issues at KSJC and many airplanes were,
indeed, displaced from KSJC through an imminent domain process
at KSJC.

Nobody is proposing to take away legacy holders addresses, but,
there is no reason to expect that a new service provided independent
of the registration service would be provided for free just because the
registration service was provided for free.

Owen