[arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

[Owen DeLong]

> On May 1, 2019, at 23:30 , Carlos Friaças via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Joe, All,
> 
> On Wed, 1 May 2019, Joe Provo wrote:
> 
> (...)
>> "Distribution function" is indeed merely agreeing that the data
>> recorded in the registry is accurate. There's no dibursement of
>> anything.
> 
> Allow me to disagree. People/orgs don't have address space. They go to the RIR. They get address space. For me, this means the RIR is distributing address space to whoever knocks on their door and is elegible to receice resources.

Here’s the thing… Even after an address range is registered to you, you don’t really “have” addresses. They’re just numbers. You can never really have “5”. What ARIN does is record the idea that a certain range of numbers is for your use on your equipment (and/or to sub delegate to your customers). They don’t actually give you the numbers (or lease them to you or transfer possession of them in any way).

They simply record that among those organizations cooperating in the global internet, uniqueness of addresses being critical to the operation of same, it is expected and tacitly agreed that no other cooperating entity will use those numbers for host addresses on the internet.

Essentially ARIN has issued you nothing but the pre-defined agreement of others and the registration of your little piece of that agreement.

> People that have no land are not able to knock at a land registry's door and simply ask for some.

The difference here is that you can “have” land where you can’t really actually “have” addresses in the same meaning.

> When we bought our house and land, the registry of
>> deeds was similar only involved in verifying that the transfer
>> from the previous holders to us was a valid contract within the
>> scope of its operations (the state in which we live).
> 
> That's a property registry. That is not a numbering resources registry. As Fernando already wrote, numbering resources are not property -- or is it property within ARIN?

Yes, that’s a property registry and ARIN is a number resource registry.

No, number resources are not property, but the registration itself is.

> Anyway, being property or not, the registry distributes numbering resources (you can argue v4 is not there anymore, but v6 and ASNs are still there).

Except that it really doesn’t. It merely records a relationship between an entity and a unique set of numbers. It does not create the numbers, it does not tangibly hand over the numbers, etc.
It merely records the association between a given entity and a given set of numbers.

It turns out that because lots of people like a functioning internet and because having uniqueness of numbers is really important for that to happen that lots and lots of people want to cooperate with those registrations and create the illusion of “having” numbers.

>> When a
>> neighbor was doing a construction project and we had to go block
>> their heavy equipment, the registrar of deeds sure didn't come
>> and settle the dispute. We went down, got the county map and
>> they agreed. if they hadn't, law enforcement and courts would
>> have been the next step.
> 
> You are perhaps trying to divert from the issue.
> 
> You and your neighbor are not members of the same "registrar of deeds". When a RIR member disrespects what the RIR has previously awarded to another member, it is breaking the system. And the RIR should be able to do something about that.

Sure you are. You’re both (presumably) citizens of the same county, just like being members of the same RIR.

When a citizen disrespects the property lines, that’s breaking that system as well.

Difference is that a county is a government and has law enforcement powers. A registry isn’t and doesn’t.


> 
> 
> 
>> This, like all Internet analogies, is poor; my thrust is that rfg's
>> is worse. To parallel ARIN with a transportation agency's "line
>> drawing" and officials embued with law enforcement is wildly off
>> track.
> 
> While we would be happy to have a simple rule in place, the proposal is somehow forced to design a process (or at least its general lines) to avoid at all cost the involvement of the RIR staff. This is why any evaluation needs to be driven from the community, not the RIR staff -- the keyword here should be self-regulation.
> 
> I do personally think RFG's analogy is way better than yours.

RFG’s analogy is way more flawed than Joe’s. No matter how much it may better support the outcome you seek.

Owen