[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 07:37:53AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> IXPs all over the world received a really valuable service from Bill, for 
> a long time, for free, before the RIRs existed, and _long_ before the RIRs 
> knew what an IXP was or how to serve it.

Purely as a point of curiosity, is the RegDate wrong then?

NetRange:   198.32.0.0 - 198.32.255.255
CIDR:       198.32.0.0/16
NetName:    NET-EP-1
NetHandle:  NET-198-32-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-198-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: DOT.EP.NET
NameServer: FLAG.EP.NET
Comment:
RegDate:    1997-06-09
Updated:    2008-01-15

RIPE was founded in 1989, APNIC in 1993, and ARIN in December of
1997.

While I'm not familar with RIPE or APNIC's policies, as far as I
can tell ARIN has had the critical infrastructure policy from day
one.  Thus your statement about long before the RIR's knew what an IXP
was doesn't seem to ring true to me.

Indeed, I would be more inclined to provide some slack to those
users of EP.Net's services in Africa or Latin America, where the
local RIR's are a much more recent development.

I don't doubt that Bill provided a great service to the community
here; my concern is on the other side of the fence.  If you run an
exchange point and decide to "outsource" part of the function (be
that IP allocations, your corporate e-mail, the NOC) it seems that
having contractual provisions for an SLA, and being prepared to
make other arrangements when the contract ends are part and parcel
of doing the outsourcing.


-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090211/5a0413de/attachment.sig>