[ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:38 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA
>
>
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>> >-----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"
>
>So far as I know, no legacy holder has obtained or asked to obtain
>IPv6 addresses (or additional IPv4 addresses) without signing an
>RSA and becoming a non-legacy holder.  I believe that some legacy
>holders may also hold non-legacy addresses, but I don't know that
>for sure.  In any case, this is straw man.
>

I don't understand your comment, here.  I was pointing out to Kevin that
it isn't possible for these rights to be in perpetuity because they are
tied up in IPv4, and IPv4 is going to end.  You seem to agree later -
but your arguing against my assertion here?  I think you need to reread the
discussion, your making exactly the same point I am.

>> 
>> 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?  ;-) ;-)
>
>Lots of contracts contain perpetual rights clauses.  So what?
>

That was exactly my response, so what?  Which is why I illustrated it
with the latticenet cards - perhaps you were unaware that latticenet is
obsolete?


>4) Legacy
>IPv4 assignments can never increase, only decrease (as the holders
>go out of business, abandon their holdings, fail to find an ISP
>which will route for them, or move to IPv6.) 

Your other points I'm not going to discuss as they boil down to
speculation - you and I can both make most logical arguments as
to what is going to happen, and both make sense - but we won't know
until it happens.

However, I don't agree with the premise that Legacy IPv4 assignments
are always going to decrease.  If a legal precident is ever set that
turns legacy numbers into "property" then they can be bought and
sold and thus will not decrease - at least, not as a rate that 
is going to matter significantly.

>
>> But in the last analysis, the so called "rights of the (IPv4) Legacy
>> holders" are only of value as long as the rest of us continue to keep
>> routing their legacy traffic - ie: their IPv4 traffic.  Ask yourself,
>
>This is yet another false assumption.  I have a legacy class C (/24)
>that is of great value to my company, despite the fact that it doesn't
>get routed.

I should have clarified that.  I don't mean of value to you.  I mean
value on the open market.

While my 1975 orange and yellow Chevy Vega with the rusted out fenders
and the seats that look like a cat clawed them may have "great value" to
me, it is of no value.*

Although I might, like you are doing with your legacy IPv4 block, argue
with ferver that my precious baby has value to anyone with good sense
to try to straighten me out.

Ted

*  Note that I do -not- own such a vehicle, I merely used the
most fugly car I could imagine for the example - my apologies
to owners of yellow-orange Vegas everywhere - and my sympathies. ;-)