On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:40:44PM +0000, John Curran wrote:

On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

...

...

For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform in the presence of such activity ("leasing" IP addresses by ISP not providing connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful. ...

the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW...

Good to know; it makes its omission from RFC2050 even more significant and highlights the need for clear policy in this area. Ultimately, the question is simply how the operator community wishes to have this treated, and there should be alignment between that consensus and the number resource policy.

/John

as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators don't participate much in the standards setting process so its no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) "blind-spots" when it comes to operational reality. and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator. --bill