[ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Thomas - Mathbox [mailto:mike at mathbox.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:30 AM
>To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Kevin Kargel'; ppml at arin.net
>Subject: RE: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA
>
>
>First let me state that I am not a legacy holder.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:20 PM
>> To: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA
>>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On
>> Behalf Of
>> >Kevin Kargel
>> >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:26 AM
>> >To: ppml at arin.net
>> >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA
>> >
>> >
>> > That's a pretty good deal.  I wish I could get it in my
>> contract that
>> >my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed.
>> >
>>
>> Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders.
>> IPve ONLY.  In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an
>> "IPv6 Legacy Holder"
>>
>> I'll be happy to write you a contract that states unequiocably that
>> you have permanent, perpetual rights in how to configure any one
>> of a box of Latticenet cards I happened to see in a junk store
>> a couple years ago. ;-)  Or maybe Arcnet cards?  ;-) ;-)
>>
>> My only concern with the "Legacy RSA" is that somewhere
>> within it, there
>> is a statement that the term "Legacy holder" means "IPv4 only holder"
>> That way there is no chance in the future that some court could
>> misinterpret the contract and use it to extend over IPv6 assignments.
>>
>> This really comes down to your position on moving to IPv6.  The
>> official word is that IPv4 runout is a fact, and that IPv6 will
>> replace it.  There are, unfortunately, a lot of people out there
>> (like Dean) who apparently think that they can manipulate the system
>> into making the Internet some sort of permanent shared IPv4/IPv6
>> environment - if that were to happen, the assignments of the Legacy
>> holders would become a permanent, unpaid, drag on the Internet.
>
>You do not consider the free 900,000+ /24 held by Xtra Large
>members unpaid,
>drag on the Internet?
>

NO, of course not.  The reason why is that hardly anybody now is advertising
IPv6.

But when most people out there advertisng IPv6 then I would assume
that people who are paying for IPv4 assignments will have an incentive
to return them and stop advertising them and stop getting billed for them.
Everyone, that is - except these legacy IPv4 holders who are STILL going
to be faced with "I either got to IPv6 and start paying a lot of money
or I keep using my free IPv4 and try to convince the rest of the world
to continue supporting them."  If the legacy holders don't do anything
they will greatly increase the amount of advertisements and cause a lot
of people to delay switchover, that is the drag I'm talking about.

Same goes for these "free 900,000+ /24 held by Xtra Large members"
your referring to - although we are having a fee discussion on them
as I'm sure you may have seen the prior posts on.

ALthough it is a little early to get into this because IPv4 runout
hasn't happened, you do realize of course that once IPv4 runout does
happen, we will have to put into policy, incentives to get people
to stop using it and to switch to IPv6.  Fee adjustments are the most
obvious.

Ted