[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Sep 30 20:49:03 EDT 2019

Hello John

Thank for your comment.
You are right that 2050 has been obsoleted by 7020, however 7020 is much 
shorter and doesn't contain much of the points and basis of 2050. That 
doesn't necessarily mean that 7020 invalidated everything that was not 
repeated 'ipsis literis' as it was in 2050. An example of that are the 
two statements below which keep being very actual and applied in 
practice in multiple RIRs still now a days.

We as a community of policy builders must base our discussions on 
something that makes sense to each Internet number registry system and 
those type of statements and principles (some of them never get old), 
although not repeated in 7020 are still very valid and actual to the 
present days.

Best regards
Fernando Frediani

On 30/09/2019 18:56, John Curran wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2019, at 4:23 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com 
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> ...
>> It also says: "/ISPs are required to utilize address space in an 
>> efficient manner.  To this end, ISPs should have documented 
>> justification available for each assignment. The regional registry 
>> may, at any time, ask for this information. If the information is not 
>> available, future allocations may be impacted.In extreme cases, 
>> existing loans may be impacted./"
>> What's wrong with that statement ? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
>> Why do you wish to reduce substantially the roles of the RIRs and 
>> pass them to private companies ?
>> It also defines Conservation as: "/Fair distribution of globally 
>> unique Internet address space according to the operational needs of 
>> the end-users and Internet Service Providers operating networks using 
>> this address space. Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize 
>> the lifetime of the Internet address space./"
> Fernando -
> Just as a reminder - it is ultimately up to the Internet number 
> community in each region to determine the appropriate policies for 
> administration of the RIR in that region.
> There is nothing wrong with citing RFCs statements with number policy 
> that you like, but it is worth noting that such statements do not 
> constrain the ARIN community from making policy of a different intent, 
> as it is ultimately up to this community to decide on what makes for 
> appropriate policy in the ARIN region.  (Note also that RFC 2050 has 
> been obsoleted by RFC 7020, which contains a more current description 
> of the Internet number registry system.)
> Thanks!
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190930/a3e52b59/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list