[arin-ppml] ULA-C

[Fred Baker]

well, OK. If they don't re-up, and continue using it, they risk your wrath. When they were validly signed up, you didn't exchange that route with them. Now that they are not validly signed up, you adamantly refuse to exchange that route with them.

And....?

On Mar 31, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 18:48, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
>> well, you didn't answer my question, so maybe I shouldn't have to answer yours :-)
> 
> Fair enough - answer below. =)
> 
>> I have no problem with your statement in principle. I'm just wondering how you enforce it.
> 
> Annual renewal required of the registrant and annual
> registrant-data-verification required of the registry (whois poc
> verification or equivalent). Or, in the case of ULA-C, perhaps
> pentennial renewal and verification would be adequate and appropriate.
> 
> ...Or maybe annual for those blocks which the registry is providing
> reverse DNS and pentennial for those with no service beyond basic
> registration.
> 
>>>> On Mar 31, 2010 6:17 PM, "Fred Baker" <fred at cisco.com> queried:
>>>> If you give a prefix to your favorite admin and have them number their network with it, and then re-assign the prefix to someone else, what's the probability that you have a collision?
> 
> Much greater than if you don't re-assign it. ;-)
> 
>>>> I think you need to accept that once put into use, a ULA will be in use by that administration permanently. You obviously see otherwise.  Fill me in?
> 
> See my previous statements regarding the impermanence of organizations
> and their networks.
> 
> ~Chris
> 
> 
> 
> --
> @ChrisGrundemann
> weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
> www.burningwiththebush.com
> www.coisoc.org

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF