[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Feb 10 13:25:15 EST 2009
On 10 Feb 2009 Kevin Kargel wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2009 Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:19:07AM -0600, Kevin
> > Kargel wrote:
> > > Maybe it is just early and my brain isn't working yet, but could
> > > someone offer a plain English translation or an example?
> > ARIN Allocates 10.0.0.0/8 to ISP.NET
> > ISP.NET allocates 10.0.1.0/24 to CriticalInfrastructure.NET.
> > ISP.NET decides to transfer 10.0.0.0/8 to TooMuchMoney.COM,
> > and tells CriticalInfrastructure.NET they can't use it
> > anymore.
> > CriticalInfrastructure.NET wants to be able to appeal to ARIN, since
> > it is "Critical Infrastructure" to prevent ISP.NET from transferring
> > the block, and presumably breaking the critical infrastructure.
> > Hence my comment that if it really is Critical Infrastructure they
> > can get a block directly from ARIN under the current policy,
> > renumber into it now, well in advance of any potential transfer and
> > then have no issues. It seems silly to me to hold up the transfer
> > of a much larger block for one small bit of critical infrastrucutre
> > when we have a way to deal with critical infrastructure.
> > However, even without renumbering, it seems like this could also be
> > solved via contract. Hopefully CriticalInfrastructure.NET has a
> > contract with ISP.NET that says they need to give them signicant
> > notice of any event that would require them to renumber.
> I completely agree with Leo on this one.. there are policies in place
> to give space to CI, so it seems to be a no-brainer that they would
> get their own PI space and not be held hostage by their provider.
> I guess the obvious solution was so obvious that I didn't see the
> problem, thanks Leo.
I guess I mostly agree with Leo and Kevin on this one, at least
for the final end state.
However, I have one small worry CriticalInfrastructure.NET and
ISP.NET don't actually have a contract, that contract doesn't
have anything specific about revocation of address
assignments in it, or worse yet what the contract says is
completely unreasonable, then what?
In other discussion off-line from PPML Leo you state that
ARIN's Appeal process doesn't allow an ISP's customer to
appeal to Appeal to ARIN. So then CiticalInfrastructure.NET
askes a judge for an injunction. So judge is looking at the
1. ARIN Policy seems to recognize the special status of critical
infrastructure, NRPM 4.4.
2. ARIN Policy seem to recognize ISPs have an obligation to
"allow sufficient time for the renumbering process to be
completed before requiring the address space to be returned",
This looks like an invitation for a judge to intervene to me. So,
now this is out of the hands of the Internet Community and in
the hands of a judge, that's not good I my opinion.
I think there should be some kind of process for an ISP
customer to appeal to ARIN. Then a customer would need to
show that both the ISP and ARIN are being unreasonable
before a judge should intervene.
Leo, if I am misrepresenting your opinion on the appeal issue,
then I sorry, and please correct me.
Also, note that I think this agrument holds for any customer of
an ISP, but it is espically true for critical infrastructure because
of NRPM 4.4.
David Farmer Email:
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-
2218 University Ave SE Cell:
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-
More information about the ARIN-PPML