[arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

Brian Jones bjones at vt.edu
Mon Oct 5 19:48:58 EDT 2015


See inline comment.

--
Brian

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:40 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Let me give you a real world example.
> >
> > 1. Buy rights to use addresses in any quantity you believe you need
> > 2. Use those addresses as you need them, assuming the agreement you made
> with the party works properly
> > 3. Get an LOA from the documented owner
> > 4. Bypass ARIN entirely
> > 5. Use the addresses.
> >
> > How do you think we should solve that problem?
>
>
> It is not my job to determine whether the example above is a major problem
> (or not) -
> that’s for the community to assess, but I do want to highlight some
> aspects that result
> from situations (such as the one described above) of which everyone on the
> list might
> not be aware -
>
> 1) While the network operations confusion that can result is fairly well
> understood to
>     those on this list, what may not be apparently is that there are
> others who rely upon
>     the registry (e.g. researchers, anti-spam folks, law enforcement,
> etc.) and for whom
>     address blocks being used as described above results in real impacts
> to their ability
>     to rely upon the registry, and thus accomplish their job.
>
> 2) Because the “documented owner” doesn’t ever update the registry, a
> number of
>     creative schemes are possible whereby the documented owner gets paid
> from
>     multiple parties for the same rights and then effectively disappears
> with their
>     proceeds leaving the individual buyers to fight it out.  There are
> ways to reduce
>     this risk (e.g. escrow arrangements, guarantees with adequate backing,
> etc.)
>     but the need for these (and probability of circumvention) goes up
> dramatically
>     absent an updated registry.  Likewise for the case where the
> “documented
>     owner” doesn’t actually have a documentation trail that would support
> their
>     ability to sell the rights to even one party, but that is not
> uncovered since the
>     documentation never gets reviewed by the registry.
>

​Number 2 here is the crux of the matter IMHO. ​In this case the registry
not getting updated could cause Internet routing issues, and may not get
discovered until routing advertisements for the addresses starts being
announced from multiple sources. There is a need for central registration
of addresses regardless. I think the entire reasoning for 2015-7 is to
simplify the needs assessment process in order to maintain an accurate
registry of IPv4 addresses. How do we do that otherwise?



>
> I have not seen a clear expression of these cases on the list, and felt it
> important
> to describe them for those who may not have first hand involvement. It is
> true that
> under 2015-7, parties would be able to obtain more address space then
> presently
> allowed and to so do based upon an officer representation, so the risks
> that such
> a change would bring about should be carefully weighted by the community
> against
> the situations outlined above which exist under the status quo.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20151005/28e88e24/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list