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

[Per Heldal]

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 12:21 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Legacy space has been transferred.  In some cases completely
> legitimately, in some cases fraudulently; and in many cases in some
> sort of grey area.  

Why use the terms "legacy space" and "legacy address-holder" in this
context at all? To me it sounds like implicit acceptance of the
principle that ip-addresses are assets. Laws and regulations change over
time in real life. Why should the internet be any different? You either
play by *current* rules or not at all. Anybody can suggest changes to
the policies, but you can't opt to stick to old rules or invent your own
and expect to stay in the game.


> Historically there were no rules.  Can a legacy
> holder transfer their space to another party?  Are they required
> to tell anyone if they do?  

Ideally there should be digital signatures and allocation policies
should be worded as if there were. Thus, any transfer must be
communicated to and authorised by the authority that originally
allocated the resource -- unless they have formally delegated
responsibility for that allocation to another organisation (which is the
case for many legacy IANA allocations). 


> If someone disputes the transfer, what
> constitutes proof?  What role does ARIN play in any of this process?

A transfer shouldn't differ from any other allocation. The registry's
role is to ensure that the new resource-holder meets current policy
requirements, and of course verify that the previous resource-holder has
authorised the transfer.


//per