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

Robert Bonomi bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com
Sun Sep 7 16:08:32 EDT 2008

> From arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net  Sun Sep  7 12:58:22 2008
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:58:15 -0400
> From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us>
> To: "arin ppml" <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy Registration
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list