[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources

[Blecker, Christoph]

> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Michael Sinatra
> Sent: June-14-12 10:13 AM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and
> legacy resources
> 
> On 6/14/12 9:54 AM, John Curran wrote:
> > Michael -
> >
> >   Can you include briefly why you are opposed and in particular
> >   if there are changes to either than might change your view?
> >
> >   (This helps proposal originators have a better understanding
> >   of the merits and concerns with their proposed changes...)
> 
> Hi John:
> 
> To be honest, reading through this thread has been painful, so let me be
> brief (at least by my standards):
> 
> I do not believe that legacy resources should be treated differently
> from the perspective of registry policy.  Note that during the time I
> have been participating in ARIN, I have represented two different legacy
> holders, one who has signed at LRSA (along with RSA) and the other who
> hasn't signed an LRSA (but who also has RSA-covered resources).
> 
> I do not agree with the rationale of this policy; specifically that
> legacy resources are inhibiting the adoption of IPv6.  Some of the
> biggest and earliest adopters of IPv6 are legacy holders, particularly
> USG and US EDU organizations.
> 
> Much of what has transpired in this thread has basically made me want to
> affirm my opposition to 171 and 172, so I don't think there's much that
> will change my mind.
> 
> thanks,
> michael
> _______________________________________________


I think these threads have been a bit painful for everyone. I echo Michael's feelings in that IPv6 adoption has little to do with legacy address holdings, being that I work for an organization with both legacy holdings and IPv6 dual stack.

In my opinion, IPv4 numbers (like IPv6 numbers and ASNs) are community resources -- irrespective if they were given out before ARIN's inception or not. It's up to us as a community today to decide how they should be handled, for the good of the internet as a whole. Hopefully this can be done in a way that satisfies the reality of the business world today, but if push comes to shove, the interests of the internet at large should take precedence over those of private business. The current framework to support legacy holders seems to accomplish these goals fairly, including the existing 8.3 transfer scheme. 

I stand opposed to both Prop 171 and 172.

Cheers,

--
Christoph Blecker
The University of British Columbia