[arin-ppml] LRSA concerns (Re: Policy Proposal: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal)

[Paul Vixie]

> From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us>
> 
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Paul Vixie <vixie at isc.org> wrote:
> > ... community either decides to come after me or stop protecting me."
> > in other words, to want differential rights between legacy and RSA, i
> > would have had to set my interests apart from the community's
> > interests, while at the same time depending on the community to go on
> > protecting my interests.  bad juju.
> 
> Legacy resource holders don't rely on anything so amorphous as "The
> Community" to protect their interests. They rely on finding one or two
> companies in a competitive market willing to announce their route, on the
> fact that they have a legal basis on which to use that route (the
> addresses were formally assigned to them) and on the lack of any legal
> basis for anyone other than them (especially ARIN) to challenge that
> announcement.

i think you're wrong.  you're relying on a lot of people to accept your
route indirectly, which they do because it's in their best interests.  the
slot you need in every router on the planet costs a microinvestment from
everybody.  as RBN discovered, there is no guaranty of third party service.
but more than the slot you want to occupy, consider the slots you want
others to be able to occupy.  policies designed to limit deaggregation are
helping keep the internet stable enough so that other people actually have
routers and those other router-owners aren't just gigantic telecoms with
deep capital pockets and draconian peering policies.

consider also the current lack of route origination security -- if you have
a /18 and someone somewhere wants to steal it with a couple of /19's your
present recourse is to ask the community to honour your assignment over the
competing ones.  which the community is likely to do because that's how
things have always worked.  in the future there may be digital certificates
on route origination, which i expect to be funded and operated through the
RIR system rather than through the kind of bilateral business arrangements
you described.

but, if you're willing to ask for that kind of support from nameless others
while simultaneously withholding the legacy address space you use from the
kind of stewardship the community practices through the RIR system, that's
between you and your gods, and i can't think that this forum will benefit
from us arguing it further.

> At any rate, you asked what fix I would make to the LRSA to bring in
> more legacy registrants and I gave you my best answers. Like 'em or
> lump 'em.

i wonder if you found jeff schiller's suggestions to be on-target?  his were
more specific than yours, and if they represent your position, it would be
helpful to know this.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.