[arin-ppml] Legacy Space authority (fwd)

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:29 PM
> To: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Legacy Space authority (fwd)
> 
> 
> Agreed, the same would have a basis for happening, and the 
> block could 
> later become assigned
>  to another org later...
> Just as with domain registrations, there was never as much as 
> a written 
> promise that the assignment
> is meaningful and permanent forever, and on any network.
> 

I am not so sure of that.  Perhaps no legally binding contract,
but I think that there were e-mails and such that implied this.

In any case, the real issue is that almost certainly there were
verbal commitments to support whois on the legacy blocks.  The
whois data on the legacy blocks didn't enter itself.  Just because
ARIN may have the legal right to ignore a legacy assignment does
not mean that this is the honorable thing to do.

If IPv6 didn't exist then it would be incumbent on the Internet
community to clean house of unused and orphaned assignments as
well as hijacked assignments, and then the legal right to deal
harshly with the legacy holders would be of far more importance.

But it does.  Therefore, it is not to the Internet communities
advantage to stir up trouble by revoking old IPv4 assignments.

As long as ARIN ignores the legacy holders and continues supporting
whois, the legacy holders have no damages to themselves by ARIN
thus no grounds to sue ARIN and possibly get lucky with some moron
boneheaded judge who would upset the applecart by creating caselaw
regarding IP addressing.

> 
> There has been some argument that the assignments by the 
> legacy registry 
> were "transfers of property"
> instead of merely assignment of numbers to go with a named network.
> 
> There has been no proof shown that the assignment is a "transfer" of 
> property any more than registration
> of domain names were.
> 
> Just like the registration of  "port 25" to the SMTP protocol or the 
> assignment of  "port 201" to Appletalk
> is anybody's property;  it doesn't matter whether you created the 
> protocol, use it, etc...
> Your equipment is your property, but the registration itself is the 
> property of whichever organization operates
> the registry.
> 
> The current maintainer of the online registry _could_  in fact revoke 
> that assignment,  but it doesn't necessarily
> mean  the community will stop using those port numbers.
> 
> Nor does an IP registry de-listing a legacy registration necessarily 
> indicate the community will stop routing
> those IPs to the same place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it may not be a good thing to do:  except in the extroardinary 
> circumstance (which may eventually happen)
> that previously assigned expired space is the only space
> left to assign for new allocations,  as the new registrant  
> paying for 
> maintenance of the registry might now
> have an ip block that is difficult or impossible for them to use  
> without being disrupted  by legacy
> networks still trying to use the space that is no longer 
> assigned by the 
> registry to that legacy network.
> 

As long as the RIR's are still assigning IPv4 people will not
switch to IPv6.

As long as Microsoft still sells XP people will not switch to
Vista.

The parallels are obvious.  It is clearly not to the Internet
community's advantage to continue spending time on IPv4 once
all operating systems and all routers in use on the Internet
can support IPv6 - which is very close.

Once we get rid of the last of the Win98, Win ME, Win 2K,
and MacOS 9 systems on the Internet - and that date is rushing
towards us faster and faster every day - then the devices on
the Internet will be able to support IPv6 - and not using IPv6
after that date will merely be a choice, not dictated by any
technical limitation.

Ted