[arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy Registration
stephen at sprunk.org
Sun Sep 7 13:40:46 EDT 2008
Cliff Bedore 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.
As a co-author of 2007-14, I will say that my "sudden interest" is not
"sudden" at all; I have always been interested in reclamation, but I was
unaware until 2007 that ARIN staff* felt that they were not able to
reclaim space, even from those who had signed an RSA, due to lack of
specific policy addressing how it should be done and under what
circumstances. I was merely trying to correct reality to match my
I feel it is getting more important as we get closer to runout because I
find it "unfair" that some organizations are holding on to addresses
they are _not_ using and that, in a few years, will prevent other
organizations from getting addresses that _will_ be used. I have no
interest in taking addresses away from anyone (whether or not they've
signed an LRSA) who _is_ using their assignments -- and I think 2007-14
is a reasonable articulation of that stance, though suggestions for
improvement are always welcome.
While "unfair" is hardly a legal term, I believe that it is a worthwhile
goal to try to be "fair" to everyone as a matter of good faith and that
it is also in ARIN's (and the community's) best interests to be as fair
as possible to preemptively defend against future lawsuits or government
actions on the basis of claimed restraint of trade, artificial barriers
to entry, etc. As much as we may disagree, I'm sure we'd _all_ be less
happy with _any_ "solution" that lawyers or politicians might come up with.
I do not believe any reclamation effort will meaningfully affect the
lifetime of IPv4 or the transition to IPv6, nor does that have anything
to do with my motivation. Frankly, I hadn't even considered it; I was
looking at IPv4 in a vacuum.
(* ARIN's counsel says the RSA gives them that power, but whoever
responded to my ACSP suggestion appears to think that they cannot, or
should not, exercise that power without policy backing it up.)
> If the intent is to raise money from Legacy holders,
The amount of money to be gained from that is barely significant. The
intent is to formalize the relationship, which will authenticate the
current holder of the resources and keep the contact information
current, which in turn will prevent spammers from hijacking legacy
blocks. However, that authentication costs money, as does upkeep of
WHOIS, rDNS, and other ARIN systems used to track registrations. You
can debate what the fee should be in the other thread on that matter,
but in general it seems fair that _some_ fee should be paid.
> ... a much less restrictive agreement than the current LRSA would be do the job. Many of us are willing to contribute but feel than any agreement that has any option of grabbing our addresses to be a deal breaker.
I am sympathetic to that argument; I am still dissatisfied with the
current LRSA myself, though I am encouraged by the progress made so far.
More information about the ARIN-PPML