[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry

[Chris Engel]

> So, are you implying that the purpose of refusing to update registration
> records for legacy transfers would be to discourage, or perhaps even
> prevent, such transfers from taking place? In other words, in the absence of
> a contract, use the leverage afforded by the registry update to make the
> legacy holder behave the way ARIN wants it to behave?

I strongly suspect, though I could be wrong,  that most entities seeking to AQUIRE resources via transfer would see it in their best interests to have those transfers reflected in updates to ARIN's database in order to assure those addresses are of full use to them and thus would be likely to make accommodations for complying with policy.

I mean heck, if I want address space that is not likely to be widely routed across the internet, why would I need to go out and BUY that space from anyone.....legacy holder or not.... when I can simply utilize the space for FREE? I can even do so in FULL COMPLIANCE with widely accepted internet standards just by utilizing RFC 1918 space.

The address space in transfers only have real value because operators VOLUNTARILY choose to route it and that largely occurs because, de facto, ARIN's listings are considered authoritative in most cases, by most operators.

Consider this,  if a transfer occurred that was widely considered illegitimate, even if ARIN updated it's records to reflect the transfer...there's still no assurance that traffic would actually get ROUTED to that address across the internet. Operators could simply CHOOSE not to update their ROUTES.

Even if we looked at an IP address block as some sort of virtual property. The main  utility the property has is achieved by having others allow people (data packets) to walk across their yards (networks) to get to that property.  There is a sort of social compact involved in that. If the property owner is obeying a fairly minimal set of understood rules, people generally agree to allow transit of their own properties, even though it imposes some burden upon them. What do you think the expected response should be if the property owner starts ignoring the social compact and the rules involved in it?

P.S. I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of dropping a "needs requirement" for transfers in general. For free pool assignments it clearly makes sense to me. Not so much for transfers. However if there is to be a "needs requirement", I'm really NOT in favor of it being selectively applied, simply based upon who the address holder happens to be.



Christopher Engel