[arin-ppml] Registry functioning
matthew at matthew.at
Wed Jun 3 23:31:38 EDT 2015
On 6/3/2015 3:06 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at
> <mailto:matthew at matthew.at>> wrote:
>> You could certainly argue (and I might) that the records of legacy
>> assignments were in fact entrusted to ARIN to keep, and keep updated
>> *whether or not the community drafted policy that said such updates
>> were disallowed*
> Noting just one of the significant problems with that argument being
> that at the time
> of ARIN’s formation, the actual applicable registry policy was RFC
> 2050 (having been
> finished just a year earlier with folks like David Conrad and Jon
> Postel as authors) -
And strangely after many legacy addresses had already been allocated.
> it states that those obtaining addresses via transfer must "meet the
> same criteria as
> if they were requesting an IP address directly from the Internet
Yes, the word "transfer" appears exactly once, and undefined, in RFC2050.
The same RFC says that one of the three goals is to "document address
space allocation and assignment" - as it says "this is necessary to
ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble
shooting at all levels". It is this latter goal that will no longer be
met if organizations are forced to "transfer" without "transferring".
> I.E., If we were maintain the exact status quo that such parties had
> prior to ARIN’s
> formation, recognized ARIN is entrusted to maintain that, then folks
> probably would
> not like the result - today’s transfer policy is more lenient than the
> transfer policy at
> that point in time.
That's one possible conclusion.
> (Thank an ARIN Advisory Council member when you next see them for all
> of their
> efforts getting useful transfer policy in the Number Resource Policy
> Manual! :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML