[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Sat Jun 1 15:53:16 EDT 2013

> JS> RFC-2050 3.1 says:
> JS>
> JS> "IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met."

AD> One might construe this statement to directly invalidate existing
legacy allocations 
AD> which would now be in ARIN's policy through this policy.  Others
might be worried 
AD> that this opens the door wider to changing policy to retroactively
revoke allocations 
AD> or assignments by changing "criteria".   Furthermore, I believe this
idea is already 
AD> handled by existing NRPM text and the RSA.

JS> What should we do here?

Lets consider the negative version of this statement

"IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met"

One could write it as follows

"IP addresses are not valid as long as the criteria is not met"

There are two issues with the current operational practices of the RIRs
and ARIN specifically with regard to this statement in my opinion.

1. "the criteria" is not really defined here and thus is open to
interpretation exactly what is intended.  One could read this as the
whole policy and that is fine, but it would be better if a statement of
principles actually referenced the "community developed number resource 
policy" rather than an obscure reference to it.  Is this the _original_
criteria when the addresses were issued or the _current_ policy or some
other policy at some time period?

2. ARIN does not "invalidate" IP addresses as soon as the criteria is
not net.  ARIN has, in general, only done reclamation in cases of fraud
and lack of payment of registration services fees.

Consider a very simple case (Yes, there are problems with every analog)

ARIN issues an org a /20 who has justified it based on current policy in
the year A.  Business cycles happen and the org changes, it is still in
business using its address block, but it could no longer justify a /20
of address space, it could only justify a /21.  Should ARIN invalidate
this org's address block?  One could say in the ideal world maybe, but
we don't live in that world.  The ARIN community has thus far not done
reclamation for this type of issue and I believe it would not be in the
registry community's best interest to do it either. 

What "principle" are people hoping to preserve by enshrining this
statement in ARIN's policy.  I think some people are trying to say that
if you can't justify the address space any more you shouldn't have it. 
While that is probably true in some cases, it may not be true in all
cases and thus we either have to define those cases or consider if a
statement like this should be in a "RIR principles section".

Again I suggest one consider my proposed changes in lieu of the proposed
original statements from RFC-2050.

    In order meet the Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System,
    resource holders may be required from time to time to provide an
    accounting and current usage of resources currently held.  The RIRs
    shall set policies to define these accounting mythologies as part of
    their community driven policy process.

One might also consider a rewrite of the RFC-2050 statement as well
adding it to the above two sentences.

    IP number resources are valid as long as an organization continues
    to comply with the terms of the community developed number resource
    policy and any registration services agreements between the
    organization and the RIR.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130601/02981de8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list