[arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy Registration
owen at delong.com
Wed Sep 24 14:23:44 EDT 2008
> Actually what I said was it would go back to the status of the non-
> signers of
> the LRSA. If that is considered undefined, that's what it would go
> back to.
> I tend to think the status is maybe "special circumstances" Those
> who use
> their space and have up to date info are being served by ARIN. You
> can lookup
> 18.104.22.168 and I'm in the database and ARIN says as of now they
> don't plan
> to change that if I don't sign. As per the LRSA page at ARIN
That status is undefined. While ARIN currently (and likely will
these services to legacy holders for free, it is unclear if ARIN has
obligation to do so. It is my understanding that a valid contract must
defined provisions for what happens at termination. A return to an
state does not appear to be plausible in a valid contract.
How would you define the "special status" without turning it into a
single-sided obligation on ARIN? Once services are covered by a
termination of the contract generally is expected to lead to
the services. In the meantime, you happen to be getting services
a contract, but, nothing guarantees that those services will be
without a contract. Nothing says they won't.
The question is, would you like to have a defined contract for
services or would
you prefer to continue gambling on continuing to receive services
As of now, ARIN doesn't plan to change that. If it's up to me, it
That doesn't mean it CAN'T change. The LRSA means it can't change so
long as you continue to maintain your obligations under the contract.
> "Note that ARIN will not reclaim unutilized address space from
> legacy holders
> who sign this RSA, nor will ARIN attempt to take away legacy
> resources from
> organizations who choose not to sign it. However, signing the Legacy
> contractually locks in a set of rights, and thus reduces the risk of
> change to a minimum."
Right... There is no current ARIN policy or intent to take legacy
from organizations who choose not to sign it. There's also nothing which
guarantees that status in perpetuity. I wouldn't support such a
the reality is that if a sufficient portion of the membership does, it
be virtually impossible to prevent such a change.
>>> My thinking is as follows. ARIN is trying to get Legacy
>>> address holders
>>> to sign an LRSA. Many have indicated a willingness to do so under
>>> certain conditions. It appears that one of the major
>>> stumbling blocks
>>> for many Legacy holders is being able to "drop out" at a
>>> later time for
>>> unspecified reasons.
>>> Let's look at what happens if that were allowed. Far more legacies
>>> appear to be willing to sign and ARIN would have accomplished what
>>> wanted to do. Assume at some time in the future, some of the legacy
>>> holders wanted to terminate "for convenience". If at that
>>> time, they are
>>> allowed to drop back to whatever services ARIN provides to
>>> legacy holders, it would be as if they never signed. If ARIN
>>> has at that
>>> time stopped providing any services to non-signers, they are in deep
>>> doo-doo and they will probably not terminate for convenience.
>> No, they would just complain that the agreement's "reversion clause"
>> implied that "things would go back to the way they were" and thus
>> ARIN would be obligated to continue providing services to them.
>>> If ARIN
>>> is providing at that time what they provide now in terms of
>>> ARIN will have had at least some time of membership and updated
>>> records. Better than having never signed.
>>> If fewer legacy holders sign up because of the more
>>> restrictive clauses,
>>> ARIN will have lost funds and better contact information and
>>> they will
>>> be in a worse position than the scernario above.
>> ARIN gets hardly any funds at all if a LSRA is signed.
>>> If in the first scenario, ARIN does a good job of
>>> stewardship, I can't
>>> believe any who signed the LRSA would want to drop out and
>>> ARIN is in a
>>> better position to recover truly abandoned IPv4.
>>> I think most legacy people feel they should not end up worse off
>>> the non-signers if they do sign
>> I agree. However, MANY people who HAVE signed the LSRA do NOT feel
>> they are worse off - yet they were once legacy people.
>> How do you reconcile that Joe Blow who signed feels better off than
>> Sally Schmoe who didn't sign the same document because she
>> feels it makes her worse off? It's the same dang document!!!
>> It's a matter of interpretation. When people like you make
>> "...legacy people feel they should not end up worse off than
>> the non-signers if they do sign..."
>> you are simply perpetuating a falsehood that somehow, signing the
>> makes a legacy holder worse off than they are now.
>>> and I think that one clause
>>> makes them
>>> feel that way. If you want, think of it as a "no fault
>>> divorce" where
>>> each party leaves with what they came in with.
>> This is a false analogy. An accurate analogy would be is if right
>> ARIN were to STOP providing whois for legacy holders who hadn't
>> and give them to option of getting something - continued whois
>> services -
>> by signing.
>> The legacy holders would then be "getting" something - whois - out
>> of the
>> agreement, just as 2 single people are "getting" something -
>> and social security - out of the marriage agreement.
>> If a divorce happens then the married couple are "losing" something
>> - the
>> marriage, just as an opt-out clause in a LSRA would have the legacy
>> "lose" something - whois.
>> But right now the legacy holders are ALREADY getting whois. Just
>> as 2
>> unmarried singles are "getting something" when they live together.
>> Thus, the difficulty of getting legacy holders to sign the LSRA is no
>> different than the difficulty of getting unmarried singles living
>> to sign the marriage document.
>> Both of them are already getting what they want out of the
>> - so why sign? Sex or whois - it's the same thing in this
>> analogy. ;-)
> Cliff Bedore
> 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740
> cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com
> Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML