[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy InternetResource Holders

David Conrad drc at virtualized.org
Thu Feb 13 11:18:12 EST 2014


John,

On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:24 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:43 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>> You appear to be assuming that if ARIN denies the transfer, the transfer doesn't occur.
> Correct.

Just as passing laws that bans buying/selling guns does not eliminate the traffic in guns, I suspect your view does not actually correspond to reality.

Unfortunately, your view pretty much guarantees the ultimate irrelevance of ARIN's registration database for the purposes for which it was created. Fortunately, it appears there is at least one other RIR that has stated it will actually provide registry services. I suspect there will be others.

>  Since you were a coauthor of RFC2050, perhaps you can explain 
>  what is supposed to happen when the approval described above 
>  does not occur?

Oddly, 2050 is silent on that. I suspect that silence might be because at least one of the authors recognized the inadvisability of imposing conditions that would defeat the primary purpose of the registry system and put that system at odds with the community it was trying to serve, something that would be a bad idea particularly since it provides its services at the discretion and whim of that community.

While it was ancient history, I seem to recall some discussion among my co-authors along the lines that it would be appropriate to refuse new allocations due to policy non-conformance since those addresses would, by definition, be non-operational, but that refusing to update the registration database for operational addresses would have the dual negative effect of damaging that database at the same time as implicitly encouraging misuse of address space since such misuse couldn't be tracked back to the misusers.

Of course, if you want to play the ancient history game, I might point out that most of the address allocations in question occurred prior to 2050 and ask you for the explicit policy document that disallows execution of a registry's primary function for those addresses or, since you're so fond of treating 2050 as sacred text, how is it you can quote 4.7, but choose to ignore the very first sentence of 4.1?

However, to be honest, I'm not that interested in playing the ancient history game -- I find the whole exercise pointless and boring. I am, however, interested in what policy changes you believe it will take to get ARIN to accurately reflect reality in its registry database. What's it going to take?

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140213/9bd5fc72/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list