[102565] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Feb 19 16:44:19 2008
Cc: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>,
Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3B8790F-FDD8-4B1E-9823-81D5C395623C@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:41:53 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 19 feb 2008, at 21:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
> At a certain point, the courts will apply the reasonable and prudent
> test to the question and likely determine
> that someone who received an assignment from SRI-NIC or NSI-NIC had
> a reasonable expectation to be
> able to use that address space in perpetuity and that whatever
> registry had reasonable duty not to duplicate
> said assignment.
I'm sorry to have to say this, but that's all a load of crap.
People get their street addresses changed when there is a need. Phone
numbers are changed when this is required to keep the numbering plan
working. Why would people who by the policies that have been in effect
for a decade don't qualify be able to keep using unreasonably large
amounts of address space if this blocks others from connecting to the
network?
ARIN/IANA/whatever should have had the stones to first put a large
amount of pressure on the legacy class A holders and then take them to
court. Declaring defeat before any action is taken is not a reasonable
course of action.
Now it's too late, of course: the lawsuits would take years,
renumbering too.
By the way, I sat down on the couch and turned on the NANOG channel to
watch the IPv6 hour, but the video was fairly flakey. What was it that
Randy found so cool?
