[arin-ppml] ARIN discontinuing DNSSEC capability to legacy holders

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

He did not mention an AS number.  Being a small player, he might like 
myself get away with using one of the AS's in the private network range, 
or might just be single homed, in which case he does not need it.

As to spinning off the Legacy holders to another registry, I do not think 
this is fair either.  ARIN knew from its beginning that there would be 
legacy holders to be served, and that they could not "force" them to pay.

As to the amount of "work" that is required to maintain reverse dns, it is 
certainly true there is very little without signing.  In most cases, as 
long as the reverse name servers do not change names, it would be many 
years between any updates.  With signing, there would be a bit more, but 
is not that done with the same automation that was written to support the 
RSA holders?  Annual verification is ARIN policy.  Since it was not 
required when legacy holders received their numbers, that cost is solely 
an ARIN cost.  If ARIN does not want to pay it, simply stop verifying the 
legacy holders.

In order to calculate fair costs to "use" the ARIN systems to update the 
signing keys I need to know some facts.  What is the number of these 
"legacy" holders, and what is the total number of holders in total?  Also, 
what is the cost to operate this system per year?

I suspect we are talking a small number when the numbers are calculated.

I ask these things in respect to ALL legacy holders.  While inspired by 
the recent discussion, putting this person aside does not change the 
overall issue in addressing signing in regard to legacy holders.

The complete answer lies in retirement of IPv4, but I doubt we will get 
there in my lifetime.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Fri, 5 Oct 2018, William Herrin wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 12:13 AM Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>> What’s happening here is that you desire to not only continue to freeload when
>> ARIN has spent decades trying to get you to play nice with others, but you
>> want ARIN to create brand new services and then give those to you for free.
>
> Every time the toxic arguments about legacy holders rear their head on
> PPML I become more convinced that the legacy holdings should be forked
> off to a distinct registry. Let legacy registrants sign a contract (or
> not) which establishes no obligations on the registrant's part and buy
> services (or not) as they choose. And let ARIN be ARIN without the
> baggage.
>
> As long as the legacy registrants are within ARIN, the fairness
> question will remain unresolvable. It's not fair that modern
> registrants face compulsions under an adhesion contract while older
> registrants do not. Nor is it fair to expect older registrants to
> accept an adhesion contract whose compulsive nature was not so much as
> a gleam in anyone's eye when they joined the ranks of TCP/IP users.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> -- 
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>