[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 2/16/2011 5:33 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Ted, I'm not sure why I'm responding to this.  I think your comments
> conflate a number of different issues.  Nevertheless:
>
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> If this is really true, then why aren't the legacy holders arguing
>> that their "rights" are for IP ADDRESSING, not "IPv4 addressing"
>
> By definition, a "legacy holder" has resources that were received
> absent contracts with an RIR.  New RIR allocations of IPv4 and IPv6
> don't fit into this category.  Further, a legacy holder might have
> different rights associated with different address blocks, e.g. if
> some of those blocks are legacy, some were received under different
> contractual relationships over the years, some were received from
> different RIRs, etc.
>
> -Benson
>
>

A Legacy that signs an RSA for a new IPv4 block agrees with the
current definition of what IPv4 is by signing the RSA.  That
definition is that IP addresses aren't property and the holder does not 
own them.

Arguing that the legacy IPv4 is somehow different than the new Ipv4 is
like arguing that my liter of 100% pure water I got last week for free 
is different than my liter of 100% pure water I got today and paid $5 
for - it's unsupportable.  Particularly since to get the new allocation 
of IPv4 the legacy holder is required by ARIN to include ALL the IPv4 
they got - legacy, transfer, contractual relationship, etc - as subject 
to the utilization minimums before getting a new block.  They agree to 
treat all of their prior IPv4 the same - including the legacy - when 
they request an additional block.  This pretty much undercuts the 
argument you are making that different blocks are different.


Ted