[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Tue Feb 10 13:38:33 EST 2009


In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:25:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> 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?

Perhaps we need some of these signs to hang around PPML:

http://www.officeplayground.com/lackplanning.html

AFAIK (someone please correct me if wrong) the critical infrastructure
policy has been in place since day 1 of ARIN.  Thus any critical
infrastructure provider has already had 11 years to get their own
block and not have this problem, and by most guesses has at least
two years to do so prior to their being a problem.

Were it just anyone, I would have little sympathy.  Being that it
is critical infrastructure, I have no sympathy.  If the thing really
is critical to the operation of the internet these sorts of
entanglements should have been removed long ago.  To say your
infrastructure is critical in the same sentence that you state you
have no contract or SLA for the items necessary to run it is rather
laughable.

> 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 
> merits;
> 
> 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", 
> NRPM 4.2.3.3 

And the critical infrastructure has had 11 years to do just that,
and two more if they start now.  IMHO posting this policy now is
admission that they know of the problem well in advance, thus killing
any chance that I might have sympathy that a sale was "sprung on
them".

I wonder what the judge will do when told "the community has provided
an option for the critical infrastructure provider to avoid this
situation for 13 years, and two years ago they tried to change the
community policy and were told to use the existing solution.  They
ignored this option, and rather came to you looking to overturn
community policy because they didn't plan properly."

> 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.

This is an entirely separate point, and if you want to bring it up
I urge you to start a separate thread.

-- 
       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/20090210/4153ae75/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list