[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-134: Identification of Legitimate Address Holders
bill at herrin.us
Wed Feb 16 20:40:03 EST 2011
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Benson Schliesser
<bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote:
>>> What problem is prop-134 trying to solve?
> Prop 134 makes the definition of "Legitimate Address Holder"
> a matter of community consensus rather than a staff implementation.
A. The community doesn't actually have a consensus on this.
B. If we did have a consensus, it wouldn't be prop 134.
C. Historically speaking, the kinds of documentation you're looking
for often isn't there. I was a college junior setting up a two-node
isolated TCP/IP network in my apartment when I applied for a class C.
Isolated because my college would only give me dialin terminal access
(2400 bps!) and slirp (slip emulator for a unix shell) hadn't been
invented yet. Ethernet cards were finally cheap enough that I could
afford to buy two and Linux was wicked cool.
Chapter 4 the 1993 edition Crab Book (O'Reilly & Associates TCP/IP
Network Administration, "Getting Started" chapter) told me to get a
class C anyway: "Obtaining a network address from the NIC is simple
and costs nothing. There are no advantages to choosing your own
unofficial network address -- except that you do not have to fill out
an application." That's where the thinking was back then. And that
kind of thing isn't prone to leaving a strong chain of custody.
D. Policy for policy's sake is unhelpful. It merely solidifies
bureaucracy and ties folks hands when the odd exceptional case comes
along. ARIN today does a fine job sorting out who is the rightful
address holder when an update is requested but the POCs are defunct.
Let 'em be.
For all of these reasons, I OPPOSE prop 134.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML