[ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA

[John Santos]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> 
> 
> >-----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.

You can have perpetual rights to something that has no (or minimal)
economic value (like your Vega).  I agree that *eventually* IPv4 will
go away and cease to have value, but the rights will persist.

Someone still owns whatever intellectual property value resides in
those latticenet cards (copyright on software, patents, whatever)
until they expire and someone owns the physical cards themselves,
even if they wouldn't sell for the cost of postage on Ebay.

"Perpetual rights" don't expire just because they have no value
any more.  My point is that I think all legacy holders know that
eventually the holdings will have no value.  But they do have
value now, and they (quite reasonably) don't want to be deprived
of that value.

> 
> >> 
> >> 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.
> 

The question of whether legacy assignments can be bought and sold
is entirely different than whether they can be taken away from
the holder without the holder's consent, which is my main issue
as a legacy holder.  When I signed up for a network assignment
in 1993, I did not expect to be able to make money by reselling
my addresses.  I wanted, then and now, to have static, unique
addresses, so I wouldn't have to renumber and I wouldn't have to
play elaborate NATing games (I don't know if NAT even existed at
the time) to communicate with other entities.

> >
> >> 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.
> 

My legacy block has real value, replacement value, since it would
take large amounts of my and other people's time (time *is* money) to
replace it.  



> 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. ;-)
> 
> 

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