Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
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.
To the extent that the operator community does not participate in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts not to participate in the open policy development process in the Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality. Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes. (my humble opinion alone) /John
On Feb 5, 2011, at 12:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
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.
To the extent that the operator community does not participate in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts not to participate in the open policy development process in the Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality.
In fairness, Operators are ruled by business needs. Convincing management that we should spend money, time, and effort to change a process which _may_ have some relevance to the bottom line in some very obtuse (and completely unrelated - by accounting standards) way is difficult at best. Add to that the fact most companies are squeezing their employees for every possible efficiency, and even spending your own time on it becomes difficult. Despite all that, I agree it is difficult for the process to take operators' PoV into account if no operator is giving input.
Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes.
We appreciate that. And let's hope the operators will make some attempt at being more involved in the process. (Guess I'll have to subscribe to PPML now, which I have been avoiding like the plague for years.) -- TTFN, patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator.
It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates. Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint. -Bill -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk1NlDkACgkQGvQy4xTRsBF6KACfe+xqvrt8ikLIJme99rLYT1OZ tQYAoJ+VsUMsui5W6ss++aOXOPEqqoRh =Cruc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator.
It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates.
Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint.
-Bill
there is no complaint here bill. there is simply the observation that if I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, that it is, at best, presumptious to presume the power of expropriation without taking into account the doctrine of eminent domain. If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away - I expect to be compensated at fair market value. I'm pretty sure that those arguments are going to be tested in the courts ... --bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system. That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests. And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides
If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away...
This is hyperbole. The RIRs are not people, they have no desires, other perhaps than that of self-perpetuation. I haven't heard _anyone_, active RIR member or otherwise, suggest that a right to _use_ space should be rescinded. The only thing I've heard even the most vehement pro-reclamation people argue in favor of is reclamation of _unused_ space.
I'm pretty sure that those arguments are going to be tested in the courts.
And ultimately, the courts uphold community standards. Which is what the public expects. If the community uses the public policy process to set a standard that you cannot meet, it's very _very_ unlikely that a court would side with you in the long term. The community we live in generally believes that paint shouldn't have lead in it, and cars should have seatbelts, and people shouldn't beat their children when they get frustrated, and although each of those things was deemed a god-given right at one time, the courts would not side with someone who did any of them, anymore. So I think the two questions here are whether you really have a grievance (I don't believe you do, since you haven't described a problem that many of the rest of us wouldn't also face), and if so, whether and how you can better your lot (and I think the answer to that is to participate in the public policy process and help establish community norms that you're comfortable with, rather than hoping that a court will buck the tide). -Bill -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk1NnmwACgkQGvQy4xTRsBHqBACdG/EB0mn2C/kd7tANzBVpBUbG EO8AoJu0gXNrNy3OMy88dsz10B9cWUUf =jhkb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:01:00AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system.
That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests.
yup... said that earlier.
And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides
decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the policies under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps? this is where I suspect there will be legal intervention to instruct/enlighten network and rir practice.
If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away...
This is hyperbole. The RIRs are not people, they have no desires, other perhaps than that of self-perpetuation.
absent people - RIRs are an empty shell... :) right... their v. there... sorry about that.
I haven't heard _anyone_, active RIR member or otherwise, suggest that a right to _use_ space should be rescinded. The only thing I've heard even the most vehement pro-reclamation people argue in favor of is reclamation of _unused_ space.
definition of "used" is not particularly clear and rarely has been. the most pragmatic has been ... "when a recognized authority has delegated the address space" -- when that was Postel, or SRI, or NSI, or ARIN, or Dupont, or Rice University, or PCH, or ep.net... doesn't really matter. it was a recognized authority. when one authority disputes the rights of another, there is really one one venue for resolution...
I'm pretty sure that those arguments are going to be tested in the courts.
And ultimately, the courts uphold community standards. Which is what the public expects. If the community uses the public policy process to set a standard that you cannot meet, it's very _very_ unlikely that a court would side with you in the long term. The community we live in generally believes that paint shouldn't have lead in it, and cars should have seatbelts, and people shouldn't beat their children when they get frustrated, and although each of those things was deemed a god-given right at one time, the courts would not side with someone who did any of them, anymore.
which is where we end up w/ the doctrine of eminent domain. and legacy/historical values do have some recognition in courts... my Ford Model T doesn't have seat belts... :)
So I think the two questions here are whether you really have a grievance (I don't believe you do, since you haven't described a problem that many of the rest of us wouldn't also face), and if so, whether and how you can better your lot (and I think the answer to that is to participate in the public policy process and help establish community norms that you're comfortable with, rather than hoping that a court will buck the tide).
of course I don't have a grievance... thats your allergic reaction :) as to your point of changing policy - sure, i could do that and i hope people become engaged... HOWEVER - I am not persuaded that a single policy framework will be applicable to all users of IP space... so n matter what current ARIN policy is - its not likely to be an exact match to the number resource policies of DuPont, or DoD, or Ohio State, or Google, or Nintendo, Toyota, PCH, or Bills Bait & Sushi. Nor can it ever be. Of course ARIN has every right to maintain its database (whois) in any way that it sees fit and how its members dictate - but unless the rights of all players are acknowledged/respected - I think ARIN is in danger of losing relevence. And that would be a great loss. --bill
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system.
That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests.
And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides
The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently reflect "community standards" in the broader sense, or inherently align with the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to operate in an illegal capacity, for instance, the fact that a "community" reached "consensus" on the matter would be a ridiculous defense. Cheers, -Benson
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system.
That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests.
And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides
The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently reflect "community standards" in the broader sense, or inherently align with the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to operate in an illegal capacity, for instance, the fact that a "community" reached "consensus" on the matter would be a ridiculous defense.
Cheers, -Benson
We have a lawyer that does an excellent job of advising us on legal concerns in our policy proposals. That is part of the policy process. As such, yes, they do somewhat inherently align with the law. As to reflecting community standards, I'm not sure what better measure of "community standards" one could propose beyond a bottom-up open consensus driven policy process such as what we have today. If you know a better way to make policy reflect community standards, there is the ACSP and I'm sure that the PDP committee would be very happy to get your input. Owen
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
... The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently reflect "community standards" in the broader sense, or inherently align with the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to operate in an illegal capacity, for instance, the fact that a "community" reached "consensus" on the matter would be a ridiculous defense.
Benson - You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review during the development process. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, John Curran wrote:
You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review during the development process.
Thanks, John. I'm aware of the legal review, as well as the AC and board "gateways" to policy adoption. I don't have any recommendation for improving that process, per se - just a healthy dose of skepticism that it will always result in alignment with the law, especially given that the legal authority of ARIN isn't clearly defined. On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
As to reflecting community standards, I'm not sure what better measure of "community standards" one could propose beyond a bottom-up open consensus driven policy process such as what we have today.
Owen, my point is that the ARIN community does not necessarily reflect the community at large. Just like the common standards within the mafia community aren't necessarily aligned with the broader standards of civil society. If ARIN is appointed in an official capacity (i.e. granted such authority by the government, or by popular vote etc) to determine specific community standards then we don't have to worry. Otherwise, ARIN has to work carefully to ensure that it doesn't go awry. In that sense, the relative smallness of the ARIN community and ARIN's organizational momentum (natural to any self-preserving organization) should be of concern. Cheers, -Benson
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, John Curran wrote:
You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review during the development process.
Thanks, John. I'm aware of the legal review, as well as the AC and board "gateways" to policy adoption. I don't have any recommendation for improving that process, per se - just a healthy dose of skepticism that it will always result in alignment with the law, especially given that the legal authority of ARIN isn't clearly defined.
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
As to reflecting community standards, I'm not sure what better measure of "community standards" one could propose beyond a bottom-up open consensus driven policy process such as what we have today.
Owen, my point is that the ARIN community does not necessarily reflect the community at large. Just like the common standards within the mafia community aren't necessarily aligned with the broader standards of civil society.
It reflects those who care to participate. The process is open to anyone in the community that want to. That's as close as any body ever comes to such a thing. Just like you don't get better politicians unless you vote, you can't get better ARIN policy unless you participate.
If ARIN is appointed in an official capacity (i.e. granted such authority by the government, or by popular vote etc) to determine specific community standards then we don't have to worry. Otherwise, ARIN has to work carefully to ensure that it doesn't go awry. In that sense, the relative smallness of the ARIN community and ARIN's organizational momentum (natural to any self-preserving organization) should be of concern.
An interesting perspective. Owen
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator.
It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates.
Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint.
-Bill
there is no complaint here bill. there is simply the observation that if I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, that it is, at best, presumptious to presume the power of expropriation without taking into account the doctrine of eminent domain. If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away - I expect to be compensated at fair market value. I'm pretty sure that those arguments are going to be tested in the courts ...
--bill
Bill, The RIRs can't take your right to do anything away, including your right to run a competing registry in which you are the sole recipient of 0.0.0.0/2 if you like. What the RIRs MIGHT do (and note that I would not support such action) is terminate registration services for those that have no contract with the RIR. Once they have done that, they are free to register the uniqueness of numbers previously registered as a free service to those without contracts to others who do have contracts. Whether or not anyone in the outside world makes use of that registration data is a matter of independent decision on the part of each consumer of registration data. Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR. It is granted by the people who run the routers on that network. It is up to the operators of each individual network to choose which network numbers they route and to whom. The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine it would be under alternative scenarios. However, that does not mean that the RIRs are granting any sort of license, right to use, or ownership. Nor does it mean that terminating a registration constitutes taking away such a grant that was never given. Owen
On 2/5/2011 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR. It is granted by the people who run the routers on that network. It is up to the operators of each individual network to choose which network numbers they route and to whom.
Which would become extremely fun in a conflict case like this, as depending on which network you asked, they could consider either party to be the party that is "hijacking" the space. Jack
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR.
As far as I know, there's no case law about address space assignments. There's been a bunch of cases where someone stole address space by pretending to be the original assignee, like the SF Bay Packet Radio case in 2008, but as far as I know, the ones that have been resolved were resolved without a court's help. There's also plenty of stolen address space still in use by the party that stole it. If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them. R's, John
On 2/5/2011 5:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them.
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other party? Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability to reclaim or remove the reallocation. Jack
If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them.
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other party? Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability to reclaim or remove the reallocation.
If the user doesn't match what's in WHOIS, a lot of people will assume that the block is hijacked. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
On 2/5/2011 5:25 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other party? Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability to reclaim or remove the reallocation.
If the user doesn't match what's in WHOIS, a lot of people will assume that the block is hijacked.
That's my point. If a legacy holder can update WHOIS, I presume they can also just allocate the entire block to someone else. It would reflect that in WHOIS, no one would consider it hijacked. Jack
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Jack Bates wrote:
That's my point. If a legacy holder can update WHOIS, I presume they can also just allocate the entire block to someone else. It would reflect that in WHOIS, no one would consider it hijacked.
Does ARIN accept SWIP requests for IPs within legacy space assignments? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own? From: John Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 5:06 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR.
As far as I know, there's no case law about address space assignments. There's been a bunch of cases where someone stole address space by pretending to be the original assignee, like the SF Bay Packet Radio case in 2008, but as far as I know, the ones that have been resolved were resolved without a court's help. There's also plenty of stolen address space still in use by the party that stole it. If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them. R's, John _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3424 - Release Date: 02/05/11
In article <0d7e01cbc58a$340347a0$9c09d6e0$@net> you write:
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
Here in the US, until there is statutory or case law, the question of whether the people with legacy IP space assignments own that space is entirely a matter of opinion. I realize a lot of people have made a lot of assertions, but anyone can assert anything. R's, John
Hi, On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:12:40 -0600 "Aaron Wendel" <aaron@wholesaleinternet.net> wrote:
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
Legacy space. The best example I can think of was Choopa's hijacking of Erie Forge and Steel's legacy space. In this case, it was theft as it was a legacy allocation and therefore "owned" by EFS. EFS however, did not notice because they were not using the legacy allocation for anything. William
Good question: Depends on what kind of address space assignment - if you mean legacy IP space, then no there is no case law. Kremen v. ARIN (Northern District of CA) is the only case law out there, but it is on point only as to 'current' IP space. In Kremen, the district court went only as far as saying that ARIN is the only available source for ‘current’ allocations. The court, in a motion to amend a prior ex parte order, found an applicant seeking IP space “could only receive the number resources if he followed ARIN’s procedures, applied for...the resources, and signed ARIN’s standard Registration Services Agreement in effect when the resources were issued." There is no statutory (federal / state) authority on point; other than: Federal statutory law now makes a felony for anyone to “falsely represent oneself to be the registrant...of 5 or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiate the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses.” (See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1037(a)(5), (2003)) Compare this to the well established law on domain name transfers (Anti Cybersquatting Protection Act; WIPO Treaties; state and federal cases). Ernie On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR.
As far as I know, there's no case law about address space assignments.
There's been a bunch of cases where someone stole address space by pretending to be the original assignee, like the SF Bay Packet Radio case in 2008, but as far as I know, the ones that have been resolved were resolved without a court's help. There's also plenty of stolen address space still in use by the party that stole it.
If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them.
R's, John
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine it would be under alternative scenarios. However, that does not mean that the RIRs are granting any sort of license, right to use, or ownership. Nor does it mean that terminating a registration constitutes taking away such a grant that was never given.
This is a pretty tenuous position. If the Whois database isn't specifying the proper association between an organization and an address block, what is it for? I think you're suggesting that the definition of "proper" in this case is no more than ARIN's non-binding recommendation. If that's the case then ARIN has no "authority" as the address registry. I think ARIN's own statements, relationship with NRO and IANA, etc, all contradict this. On the other hand, if ARIN intends the Whois to reflect the proper association between organizations and address blocks, then it has some responsibility for the accuracy of that data. While not a perfect comparison, it would be somewhat like a financial services company hired to maintain shareholder ownership records of a public company - negligence in maintaining accurate records can result in criminal consequences. In fact, in my example, if the company decided to reallocate one group of shares to new owners they'd find themselves in a deep pile of trouble - we have laws that govern property rights, define theft and fraud, etc, all of which takes precedence over company policy. It would be disingenuous to offer a database of information, recommend it be used by the public, support its use as an authoritative source, and then deny any responsibility for the contents. I don't think your position on this particular topic reflects ARIN in reality. Cheers, -Benson
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine it would be under alternative scenarios. However, that does not mean that the RIRs are granting any sort of license, right to use, or ownership. Nor does it mean that terminating a registration constitutes taking away such a grant that was never given.
I need to be very clear here... The opinions I am expressing are mine and mine alone. I don't know if ANYONE at ARIN shares them with me.
This is a pretty tenuous position. If the Whois database isn't specifying the proper association between an organization and an address block, what is it for? I think you're suggesting that the definition of "proper" in this case is no more than ARIN's non-binding recommendation. If that's the case then ARIN has no "authority" as the address registry. I think ARIN's own statements, relationship with NRO and IANA, etc, all contradict this.
What I am saying is that ARIN and the Whois database ARIN maintains is authoritative only so far as those using the data wish to consider it authoritative. It does not command any particular network operator to treat any set of numbers in any particular way. ARIN is the registry recognized as authoritative in its geographic region by NRO and IANA. However, one can maintain a database of integers that is not sanction by NRO and IANA and if people choose to put your numbers into their routers instead of ARIN or other NRO or IANA based registry numbers, who is to stop them or you? The ability of ARIN to influence the routing table is strictly limited to the fact that ISPs choose to consider ARIN authoritative. That choice is entirely voluntary on the part of the ISPs.
On the other hand, if ARIN intends the Whois to reflect the proper association between organizations and address blocks, then it has some responsibility for the accuracy of that data. While not a perfect comparison, it would be somewhat like a financial services company hired to maintain shareholder ownership records of a public company - negligence in maintaining accurate records can result in criminal consequences. In fact, in my example, if the company decided to reallocate one group of shares to new owners they'd find themselves in a deep pile of trouble - we have laws that govern property rights, define theft and fraud, etc, all of which takes precedence over company policy.
I think ARIN has tremendous responsibility for the accuracy of that data. However, the definition of what is accurate is governed only by ARIN policy and the contracts ARIN has to provide registration services.
It would be disingenuous to offer a database of information, recommend it be used by the public, support its use as an authoritative source, and then deny any responsibility for the contents. I don't think your position on this particular topic reflects ARIN in reality.
I am not denying that ARIN has responsibility for the contents of the database. I absolutely feel they are responsible to the members and to the resource holders who pay ARIN for registration services to keep that data accurate. So far, they have also voluntarily accepted additional data which may or may not be accurate in support of a community of pre-existing registrations that have no contract with ARIN. There is no reason I know of that ARIN would not be within its rights to terminate that free voluntary registration service at any time. Note, I think such an action on ARINs part would be ill-advised and contrary to the good of the community and harmful to the internet. It might even be damaging to ARINs very relevance to the internet. I'm merely pointing out that legacy holders cannot be assured ARIN will continue to provide a free registration service for them in perpetuity. If they want to guarantee the services they have today, signing the LRSA is crucial. If they do not sign the LRSA, there is nothing to prevent the community from changing ARIN policy in such a way that said free services are terminated. I will oppose any such move by the community. I have strongly opposed previous efforts in this direction. However, I am one voice in a much larger community. Owen
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:24:01PM -0500, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
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.
To the extent that the operator community does not participate in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts not to participate in the open policy development process in the Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality.
Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes.
(my humble opinion alone) /John
yeah... we are sharing opinions here.. :) the only analogy i can draw here is one of "land-grant" vs "eminent-domain" in the real estate world. in the case where an entity recevied an allocation at some point (being justified under then then current policy) it is going to take a bit of work to justify expropriation just 'cause the policy has changed... unless of course the RIR is willing to pay the fair market value to the holder to reclaim the space. this report suggests that the question is not RIR specific. http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20N... but thats just me. --bill
participants (14)
-
Aaron Wendel -
Benson Schliesser -
Bill Woodcock -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Ernie Rubi -
Jack Bates -
John Curran -
John Curran -
John Levine -
John R. Levine
-
Jon Lewis -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
William Pitcock