<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion- Last Call (textrevised)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Never, in my memory, has the debate over recovery of legacy addresses been given more than superficial treatment.<BR>
<BR>
Seems that the typical statements that stop debate is that such a course would be prohibitively expensive from a legal point of view and a real PR nightmare to boot...or at least not a 'value' proposition.<BR>
<BR>
One way to have such a debate is to make a proposal through the regular process of the PDP. If you feel strongly about your position, you are welcome to draft such a proposal and let the discussion begin....<BR>
<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Aaron Wendel<BR>
Sent: Tue 11/2/2010 6:10 PM<BR>
To: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion- Last Call (textrevised)<BR>
<BR>
I took John's comments here:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
"The only they can't do is transfer resources outside of the policies, as<BR>
ARIN has to maintain the registration database in accordance with the<BR>
community policies as adopted."<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
To mean that ARIN would not update the registration database with<BR>
information for a new org if legacy space was transferred outside of the<BR>
ARIN rules.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
My question about that is what happens to the integrity of the registration<BR>
data when Bob, who obtained a /16 back in 1990, decides to sell it off in<BR>
/24s to 256 different people? Bob's given all those people LOAs with their<BR>
new /24s so they have no issues getting them routed but ARIN refuses to<BR>
change the registration. Bob's not in control of those blocks anymore and<BR>
doesn't care to answer questions about them and the "community" has no way<BR>
of knowing who has those blocks and how to contact them.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Ted is correct. The community has given ARIN the mandate to hold out the<BR>
carrot in the form of the LRSA but no one seems to want to give ARIN a<BR>
stick. I would assume that's because the majority of the active ARIN<BR>
members, and by active I mean ones that participate on the list or at<BR>
meetings, are legacy holders themselves.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
If ARIN, whose primary job is to maintain the registration data, can't<BR>
insure the integrity of that registration data any more then what's the<BR>
point? Once one legacy holder kicks them in the groin and they don't fight<BR>
back it'll be a feeding frenzy.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I think the responsible thing for the community to do would be to give ARIN<BR>
the stick they need.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Aaron<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [<A HREF="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</A>] On<BR>
Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt<BR>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:38 PM<BR>
To: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):<BR>
GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion - Last Call<BR>
(textrevised)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 11/2/2010 2:42 PM, John Curran wrote:<BR>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Mike Burns wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> John,<BR>
>><BR>
>> How was the registration database maintained in accordance with community<BR>
>> policies and yet the ORG and POC information for some legacy records has<BR>
>> been changed?<BR>
><BR>
> Organizations with legacy address blocks may update their point of contact<BR>
> information (in fact, they can now do it online via ARIN Online, probably<BR>
> why we have more than 20,000 ARIN Online accounts... :-) Remember, we are<BR>
> actively requesting all organizations to update their Point of Contact<BR>
(POC)<BR>
> information via electronic reminders. More information about this program<BR>
> and its progress was given at the Atlanta meeting:<BR>
><BR>
<https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXV/PDF/Monday/Nobil<BR>
e_POC_Validation.pdf><BR>
><BR>
>> Are we to assume by your statements that the 16/8 block HAS to have an<BR>
LSRA<BR>
><BR>
>> signed, since the original recipients of this legacy block are no longer<BR>
>> listed in the registration database?<BR>
>> And, if this is the case, can we assume that justification was provided<BR>
per<BR>
>> NRPM 8.2?<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
Mike, the problem with the Legacy holders is that the ARIN community has<BR>
never agreed to exert the RIR's authority over them. There are many<BR>
historical reasons (some valid, some not) for this, but the Legacy<BR>
holders aren't stupid. They know that until the community unites<BR>
against them and tells them all to sign an LSRA and thus come under<BR>
obligation to the NRPM and it's justification requirements, (or face the<BR>
whois database being purged of their records) that they<BR>
can do whatever the hell they want. Including changing the POC to<BR>
some other org, essentially transferring the block to someone else.<BR>
John Curran is just trying to say this in a nice fashion to you. But<BR>
truthfully he has absolutely no lever over the non-LRSA Legacy holders,<BR>
because the one lever he can use, the community won't give to ARIN.<BR>
<BR>
I frankly think that the situation now is more of a fairness thing,<BR>
it is grossly unfair to the LRSA signatories for some of their peers<BR>
to to continue to flout the intent of the LRSA and ignore it. I do<BR>
not understand why the RSA holders unite against the Legacy holders<BR>
and I -definitely- don't understand why the LRSA signatories unite<BR>
against the non-LRSA Legacy holders, but until that happens, nothing<BR>
is going to change.<BR>
<BR>
Ted<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
_____ <BR>
<BR>
No virus found in this message.<BR>
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>
Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>