[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion- Last Call (textrevised)

Bill Darte BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Tue Nov 2 20:38:04 EDT 2010

Never, in my memory, has the debate over recovery of legacy addresses been given more than superficial treatment.

Seems that the typical statements that stop debate is that such a course would be prohibitively expensive from a legal point of view and a real PR nightmare to boot...or at least not a 'value' proposition.

One way to have such a debate is to make a proposal through the regular process of the PDP.  If you feel strongly about your position, you are welcome to draft such a proposal and let the discussion begin....


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Aaron Wendel
Sent: Tue 11/2/2010 6:10 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion- Last Call (textrevised)
I took John's comments here:


"The only they can't do is transfer resources outside of the policies, as
ARIN has to maintain the registration database in accordance with the
community policies as adopted."


To mean that ARIN would not update the registration database with
information for a new org if legacy space was transferred outside of the
ARIN rules.


My question about that is what happens to the integrity of the registration
data when Bob, who obtained a /16 back in 1990, decides to sell it off in
/24s to 256 different people?  Bob's given all those people LOAs with their
new /24s so they have no issues getting them routed but ARIN refuses to
change the registration.  Bob's not in control of those blocks anymore and
doesn't care to answer questions about them and the "community" has no way
of knowing who has those blocks and how to contact them.


Ted is correct.  The community has given ARIN the mandate to hold out the
carrot in the form of the LRSA but no one seems to want to give ARIN a
stick.  I would assume that's because the majority of the active ARIN
members, and by active I mean ones that participate on the list or at
meetings, are legacy holders themselves.


If ARIN, whose primary job is to maintain the registration data, can't
insure the integrity of that registration data any more then what's the
point?  Once one legacy holder kicks them in the groin and they don't fight
back it'll be a feeding frenzy.


I think the responsible thing for the community to do would be to give ARIN
the stick they need.





From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:38 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):
GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion - Last Call


On 11/2/2010 2:42 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> John,
>> How was the registration database maintained in accordance with community
>> policies and yet the ORG and POC information for some legacy records has
>> been changed?
> Organizations with legacy address blocks may update their point of contact
> information (in fact, they can now do it online via ARIN Online, probably
> why we have more than 20,000 ARIN Online accounts... :-)  Remember, we are
> actively requesting all organizations to update their Point of Contact
> information via electronic reminders.  More information about this program
> and its progress was given at the Atlanta meeting:
>> Are we to assume by your statements that the 16/8 block HAS to have an
>> signed, since the original recipients of this legacy block are no longer
>> listed in the registration database?
>> And, if this is the case, can we assume that justification was provided
>> NRPM 8.2?

Mike, the problem with the Legacy holders is that the ARIN community has
never agreed to exert the RIR's authority over them.  There are many
historical reasons (some valid, some not) for this, but the Legacy
holders aren't stupid.  They know that until the community unites
against them and tells them all to sign an LSRA and thus come under
obligation to the NRPM and it's justification requirements, (or face the
whois database being purged of their records) that they
can do whatever the hell they want.  Including changing the POC to
some other org, essentially transferring the block to someone else.
John Curran is just trying to say this in a nice fashion to you.  But
truthfully he has absolutely no lever over the non-LRSA Legacy holders,
because the one lever he can use, the community won't give to ARIN.

I frankly think that the situation now is more of a fairness thing,
it is grossly unfair to the LRSA signatories for some of their peers
to to continue to flout the intent of the LRSA and ignore it.  I do
not understand why the RSA holders unite against the Legacy holders
and I -definitely- don't understand why the LRSA signatories unite
against the non-LRSA Legacy holders, but until that happens, nothing
is going to change.

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. 


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20101102/3cb210bb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list