[arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy Registration

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Jeremy H. Griffith <jhg at omsys.com> wrote:
> That's not where I start from.  I start from the belief that
> a "successor" is necessarily bound to respect the acts of its
> "predecessors", which issued the legacy resources under terms
> that were very different from those now being offered:
>
> *  No possibility of return on an involuntary basis.
>   This was essential to encourage us to do the work
>   that led to the current Internet.
>
> *  No fees, even though essentially the same services
>   for which fees are now deemed appropriate were in
>   existence at that time.

Strictly speaking, there was a third condition: no commercial use.
Unless you got your IP addresses in the short window between 1995 and
1997, the expectation was that you were involved in activities
associated with the government/research/education network. There were
no fees because the government was footing the bill for the good of
the folks connected to that non-commercial network.

Times change and it's appropriate to change with them. That's among
the reasons I have no problem with the proposed fee.

That having been said, the fact that the legacy registrants can to
some extent tell ARIN to go stuff it provides an important check
against some of the more punitive-minded folks in the community. It
would be unfortunate and ultimately destructive to lose that check.


On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Cliff Bedore <cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com> wrote:
> I'm curious about why the sudden interest in "outreach/reclamation" of
> Legacy addresses.  We made it 10 years or so without it.  As IPv4 runs
> out,are we really trying to push IPv6 or get back enough IPv4 to stumble
> along for some undetermined length of time.

In three years or so, IPv4 assignment gets really hairy. It would be
helpful for everybody with IP addresses to have well defined flow of
legal authority in place before then to provide a check against the
shall we say less sane ideas for what to do about it.


On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Eric Westbrook <arin-ppml at westbrook.com> wrote:
> Given all of these observations taken together, it seems clear to me that
> involuntary reallocation, reclamation, and revocation of legacy ipv4 number
> resources should be explicitly disavowed in the LRSA for those that sign
> it.  The value of bringing such holders into a cooperative relationship for
> consideration and participation seems to far outweigh the spoils of any
> actual or potential forcible control over the resources.

Ditto.


Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004