[arin-ppml] ARIN's Authority - One view (was: Re: LRSA concerns)

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

	your wording is disingenous.  ARIN has a stewardship role
	over Internet numbering resources. That stewardhip
	is not address family specific.  We should not be swayed by the
	bias of the percevied value of any given resource.
--bill


> I disagree. ARIN should focus on efficient and appropriate management of
> the scarcity of IPv4 resources. Neither you, nor I, nor ARIN knows when
> or even if a migration will occur. All policies should be based on
> acceptance of that fact, and seek to manage both v4 and v6 resources as
> effectively and efficiently as possible. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 
> > I would like to see ARIN focus on the end-game of IPv4 and the
> adoption of
> > IPv6, both through policy and press.  I think all of the efforts to
> > manipulate and control IPv4 space are, as Randy put it, just
> rearranging
> > the
> > deck chairs on the Titanic, and presents a picture to the public that
> > there
> > are ways to artificially extend the life of IPv4.  It would be better
> if
> > ARIN said "IPv4 is on its way out, we'll manage what we have left, but
> > we're
> > not going to work at extending its natural life."
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/23/08 8:59 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Aug 23, 2008, at 10:40 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > >> What's more, the presentations made to gain the community consensus
> > >> that led to NCR-9218742's amendment 6 repeatedly promised that what
> > >> came to be known as the legacy registrations would remain untouched
> by
> > >> ARIN except to provide whois and rdns services.
> > >> http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf is was such a
> presentation,
> > >> made to the FNC in support of ARIN's formation. See page 9,
> > >> specifically: "Current and old allocations and their DNS will be
> > >> maintained with no policy changes"
> > >
> > > You're right!  That presentation was made after adoption of RFC
> 2050,
> > > which specifically calls for invalidation of existing assignments
> which
> > > are no longer needed.
> > >
> > > No change to address management policy was implied by creation of
> ARIN;
> > > the same address blocks that were obtained via US government
> auspices
> > > so that one could to participate in the Internet and Internet
> Protocol
> > > development were already covered by this policy in place at the
> time.
> > >
> > >> Inclusion of that statement was no mistake. "The Community"
> insisted
> > >> on it.
> > >
> > > Correct!
> > >
> > >> We're left with: no explicit grant of authority over the legacy
> > >
> > >> registrations, and the historical documents that do talk about it
> > >> suggest that the intention was to -not- grant such authority.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, why did you expect such? Your allocations were always
> made
> > > under the authority of the IANA and based on your need for address
> > > space.
> > > The fact that we corrected the address subnet boundaries to allow
> for
> > > a better fit (CIDR) was the only major change, and if you happen to
> have
> > > been sitting on a "class A" or class B address block, it sure would
> have
> > > been nice if you returned the excess space which was provided to you
> > > due to this technical flaw in the original block allocation sizes.
> The
> > > reasons that some organizations did not are varied, and mostly
> related
> > > to
> > > pain of renumbering, sparse allocation, and similar technical issues
> > > [ref: <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2071.html>]
> > >
> > >>> Frankly, I'd rather not think about this, and hope that this
> > >>> particular chain of succession remain nothing more than an
> > >>> interesting historical tidbit best ignored.
> > >>
> > >> You'll get no argument from me on this point.
> > >>
> > >> However, when v4 depletion is reached you'll find yourself under
> > >> pressure to reclaim the fallow address space, however little it may
> > >> be. To do so successfully you'll need to first normalize relations
> > >> with the registrants whose legacy space is still in service. The
> only
> > >> two ways you do that without creating a godawful mess for yourself
> are
> > >> to either seek an explicit grant of authority from the USG that
> > >> supersedes the old community agreements
> > >
> > > The first direction above (reliance upon "authority") doesn't follow
> the
> > > principles of industry self-governance, and should be avoided at all
> > > costs.
> > > There's an fairly large "mess" whether one relies upon existing
> > > delegation
> > > of authority or whether one attempts to refresh it in some manner.
> > >
> > >> -OR- convince the vast majority of legacy registrants to
> voluntarily
> > >> sign contracts with ARIN so that when you declare the rest of the
> > >> space
> > >> dead and expired there's no one left to raise a stink.
> > >
> > > The second direction above is the correct one (IMHO), although I
> expect
> > > there'll always be someone left to "raise a stick" and ARIN must
> > > prepared
> > > accordingly if we're directed by the community to do anything with
> > > respect
> > > to legacy address reclamation.
> > >
> > >> ..
> > >> ARIN's authority and autonomy derive from the *strong* consensus of
> > >> the community it serves. That autonomy will end when ARIN places
> > >> itself at the center of a dispute that results in a fall to weak
> > >> consensus and the defection of any significant minority of that
> > >> community.
> > >
> > >
> > > We aim to please.  If the consensus of the Internet community in the
> > > ARIN
> > > region is to undertake some action here, then we will very likely do
> so.
> > > It should be made very clear that ARIN serves the entire Internet
> > > community
> > > in the ARIN region, and not simply those who have taken the time and
> > > effort
> > > to participate as members.  It is that reality which 1) causes ARIN
> to
> > > undertake more outreach than might otherwise be expected, and 2)
> makes
> > > the
> > > measurement of consensus for the "ARIN region Internet community"
> quite
> > > difficult.
> > >
> > > /John
> > > (my opinions only; 100% of the electrons used in this email are from
> > >   recycled matter)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PPML
> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.