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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu May 12 12:57:10 EDT 2011

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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list