[arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy Registration
Howard, W. Lee
Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Sun Sep 7 09:34:16 EDT 2008
Darn Windows (i.e., user fatfinger) sent message before I was ready.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Howard, W. Lee
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 9:23 AM
> To: Eric Westbrook; arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the
> Legacy Registration
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Eric Westbrook
> > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 8:50 AM
> > To: arin ppml
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy
> > 1. Many legacy holders (myself included) want to formalize a
> > with ARIN, and even engage in financial participation;
> An excellent start.
> > 2. Many legacy holders (myself included) are reluctant, to put it
> > mildly, to sacrifice ultimate control of their number
> resources -- and
> > even more so to pay for the dubious privilege;
I see that. Can you specify in excrutiating detail what
control you yield? I think you mean that you don't believe
you should be required to release your address space under
any circumstances. I think the few circumstances remaining
in the LRSA are reasonable; can you list the ones you think
Let me put my perspective this way. . . we worked hard to
rewrite the LRSA so that the only circumstances under which
you would cede your addresses to ARIN were under your control.
By "we" I mean "that's what I was trying to do."
> 5. If any legacy holdings are to be seized, the
> prevailing sentiment seems to prefer doing so with the
> unreachable and/or apathetic holders, and not with the
> cooperative and participating ones;
I'm not sure I've seen that stated explicitly, but that seems
like a reasonable preference. That would include falling
out of touch/compliance with the LRSA, too (if signed).
> 6. Finally, by many if not all accounts, reallocating,
> reclaiming, and/or revoking legacy holdings simply isn't
> likely to ameliorate ipv4 exhaustion (or ramifications
> thereof) to any truly significant or meaningful degree.
I concede that. That's why I didn't argue that legacy holders
must be able to show utilization (whether under current
policies, RFC2050, or the policies or use stated at the time
of original assignment).
Thank you for your reasonable tone and contribution.
Disclaimer: I wrote this, nobody else, and it's entirely possible
that other Board members, ARIN staff, General Counsel, or my wife
will disagree or remember differently.
More information about the ARIN-PPML