[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Owen DeLong]

On May 12, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi Jimmy,
> 
>> 
>> It is little different than use of a forged LOA, really.
>> The network operator will typically take _anything_  that looks like
>> plausible documentation.
>> If the document is forged or otherwise invalid, the responsibility is
>> now on the customer's head,
>> and the network operator can plead ignorance.
>> 
> 
> This is my experience as well.
> The network operator requires a CoverYourAss document from the entity seeking routing of their addresses.
> When the likelihood of conflicting claims potentially rising after the free pool empties, this behavior on the part of network operators might no longer be sufficient.
> The network operator community probably would like access to a reliable authoritative registry.
> .

Or, more accurately, network operators may place increasing value on registry data
as authoritative and instruct those without registry entries to get that resolved if they
want their space routed.

>> 
>> This is not a problem with addressing policy; it's a weakness of the
>> routing system,
> 
> It's only a problem with addressing policy if policy drives registrants away.
> 

I suspect this will be progressively less of  a problem, actually.

>> and certified resources / RPKI  could eventually offer a solution.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> But legitimate organizations would usually like some certainty that
>> they have the
>> IP addresses,  they are on record as having the IP addresses, they are under
>> proper agreement,  and they won't incur a disruption or loss of number
>> resources
>> impacting their business  as a result of not doing things right and
>> having mucked up records.
>> 
> 
> I agree completely that legitimate businesses hate FUD and want reliable registration and control of their addresses.
> 

Which would support continuation of needs basis and preservation of the
terms of the RSA.

Owen