[arin-ppml] Borders sells their /16 block

[Owen DeLong]

On Dec 7, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Chris Engel wrote:

> 
>> ARIN would not be negating or even attempting to negate the uniqueness of
>> addresses. As you said, ARIN controls the whois database. The registrations
>> retained in whois would remain unique. There would no longer be an invalid
>> registration for party A in whois. There would, instead, at some point, be a
>> unique registration to party C. The fact that party B has some arbitrary sense
>> of entitlement to use of those numbers is not of particular concern to ARIN
>> or the community, except to the extent that it causes damage to the
>> internet, wherein the community is, IMHO, likely to take appropriate action
>> against party B (derouting).
> 
> 
> On the other hand, it's probably best for everyone involved if the above scenario is avoided. One thing to reclaim space that has been "high jacked",  another thing to reclaim it from organizations who do have some reasonable non-arbitrary basis for believing they have a legitimate claim to such space....such as a Bankruptcy Court approving said transfer or a contract from the entity which is legitimately listed as holder of that space in the registry.
> 

In such a case, it is unlikely that they would be unable to complete a section 8 transfer with ARIN.

Absent completion of such a transfer, IMHO, it is indistinguishable from hijacking. It is an organization with no policy basis for having the addresses using addresses that were registered to a separate organization. That's pretty much the definition of hijacking.

> In other words, it would behoove ARIN to try to find a way to make said transfers fit within policy if at all possible.... and I think it generally behooves both the buyer and seller of the address block to do so as well. Fortunately that seems to be what has happened in the well publicized transfers so far.

Agreed. I think ARIN and current policy have done a good job of that. There are no documented cases that I am aware of where this has failed so far.

> Introducing degrees of uncertainty, even if it was technically within the bounds of policy....probably doesn't serve anyone's interests well.

When it comes to legacy addresses, there is much uncertainty until there is a contract with the RIR.

Reclamation of blocks in questionable status and no longer under control of the registrant is, frankly, one way to reduce the uncertainty.

Owen