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

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Tue May 24 11:17:26 EDT 2011


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:43 PM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois
> Accurate
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > It's important to understand that ARIN *does* have legal contractual
> rights with all address holders under RSA. The RSA is the contract which
> gives ARIN those legal rights. But the legacy holders don't have any
> agreement, and so ARIN does not have any contractual rights over legacy
> space, as they do over RSA space.
> >
> Ah, but, this cuts both ways. Legacy holders don't have any agreement and
> so don't have
> any contractual rights, either, unless they're under LRSA or RSA with
> > This is the clear implication of Ray Plzak's words in his declaration.
> Trying to bind legacy holders to ARIN policy is a difficult legal row to
> hoe, absent these agreements. But ARIN doesn't need any agreement with
> legacy holders to control Whois. I believe ARIN could legally reissue
> *all* legacy addresses to new allocants and update Whois. ARIN has
> exclusive rights to control Whois in accordance with community policy.
> With respect to registrations, all ARIN really does is control the various
> databases
> maintained by ARIN. All ARIN policy really governs is how ARIN manages
> those
> databases. They include Whois, ARIN's internal registration databases, the
> database
> from which ARIN generates it's in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa zones, and
> certain other
> ancillary databases.
> Any other belief about exclusive rights to use, sell, buy, route, or
> otherwise use
> the number resources registered (or not registered) by ARIN is a somewhat
> separate matter. The internet works because ISPs choose to cooperate with
> the RIR system and make routing decisions based on what is in the ARIN
> and other RIR databases. There is nothing that prevents any ISP or group
> of ISPs from developing their own independent internet, registry
> structure,
> etc. and doing as they wish with it, including starting over with all
> numbers
> freshly unregistered an an entire 32-bit IPv4 greenfield address space.
> However, if they expect those registrations to be able to talk to the
> current
> IPv4 internet, well, there are some problems.

What Owen is saying is to the crux of the matter.  What ARIN does is simply to maintain a database pursuant to rules and agreements arrived at by members represented in the database.  If you want to be represented in the database then you must agree to play along with the other members according to the rules.  

ARIN does not directly control any numbers, netblocks or the rights to use those numbers or netblocks other than as agreed upon by cooperating networks.  All ARIN does is to manage a database.  I, for one, am a little confused as to how an agreement between ARIN and another party is construed to be unilaterally transferable and treatable as property.  

Internet users *choose* to reference the ARIN database  because it works and it makes life simpler than individually keeping track of where we route data and who we want to route it to.  To my understanding (IANAL) neither ARIN nor any force of law require any network to operate referencing the ARIN database so long as you do not disrupt the operation of other networks.

All the talk of ARIN controlling netblocks and routing is really obfuscation.  If anyone doesn't like the way ARIN manages the database all they really have to do is maintain their own database.  (Sounds simple, doesn't it..)  So long as you and all the parties you wish to communicate with are using the same database life is good.

What I suspect would be the biggest problem if a network did maintain their own database is that when their non-aligned peers discover they are using a different database then those non-aligned peers will stop accepting routing advertisements from the network.  This has happened to networks in the past when network operators have had incorrect routes in their tables whether by intention or typo.  To keep life simple and reduce my workload I choose to be represented in the ARIN database and follow the rules that go along with that.  


> However, in terms of ARIN policy, that governs how ARIN administers the
> registration database that ARIN maintains, regardless of whether the
> entries
> are legacy holders or not. Traditionally ARIN has bent over backwards to
> accommodate legacy holders to the greatest extent possible in favor of
> preserving a coherent community and a useful internet.
> I'm not advocating that we change this, but, I do _NOT_ want to expand
> the pool of resource holders accommodated in this manner and would
> rather seek ways in which we can reduce the size of that pool. Eventually,
> IPv6 will move the meaningful size of that pool to very nearly zero
> anyway.
> >
> > But your points about multiple jurisdictions is important, and goes to
> my argument that ARIN should recognize the most liberal address holder
> rights as possible to go furthest in preventing potential conflict between
> ARIN and address holder, or ARIN and some local government.
> Actually, it is not at all unlikely that many of the governments within
> the ARIN region
> would consider ARIN abandoning it's needs-basis stewardship of the
> addresses
> as an unauthorized abdication and conflict in the opposite direction.
> > When you tighten up restrictions and begin the process Owen is talking
> about, the revokation and reissuance of space, the potential for conflict
> is ripe.
> We aren't talking about tightening up restrictions. We're talking about
> not removing existing
> restrictions. The reclamation and reissuance that I have advocated is
> already there in
> current policy.
> You are the one proposing a change. I have been describing the current
> state of policy.
> Mischaracterizing my position as advocating for change (with the
> implication that you
> are advocating codifying existing practice) really doesn't reflect the
> reality of the
> situation.
> >
> Owen
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list