[128658] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Fri Aug 13 19:09:19 2010
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:08:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4C65C81C.5060809@kotovnik.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 13, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> John - you do not get it...
>=20
> First of all, I don't want your organization to have ANY policy at all.
Unfortunately, Vadim, even "No Policy" *is* a policy.
> Being just a title company for IP blocks is well and good - and can be
> easily done at maybe 1% of your budget. Title companies do not tell
> people if they can buy or sell, they just record the current ownership.=20
> They do not create controversy or conflict - in fact, their sole reason
> for existence is to reduce expenses involved in figuring out who has
> rights to what.
ARIN (and the other RIRs) performs address allocation, registration
services, and membership services. One of the great questions we all
face is how much real number resource policy development will be needed
when you look out 5 to 10 years, in an environment when there's not any=20
free pool allocations being made for IPv4, and most organizations have
their initial IPv6 allocation. Is there really a need for twice annual=20
RIR policy meetings and extensive IPv6 awareness outreach work?
If those activities are reduced, and the role of an RIR becomes that of=20
a title registry, there's no doubt that it can be done with a smaller=20
organization. Note - you still need to decide where base registry policy=20
happens (e.g. WHOIS publication/privacy, lawful cooperation, etc.) but=20
this doesn't need to be in ARIN and could be left to your choice of some
other association and/or determined by each local government).=20
> ARIN as a policy-making body exists solely due to cluelessness of telco
> management. If the execs had any clue, they'd realize that there is NO
> such thing as owning a block of IP addresses - the real object is the
> contractual right to send packets to that address block over their
> networks. =20
In general, telecommunications companies do assert that IP addresses are=20
provided as a component of service and that there is no ownership right
therein. This is fairly common in most contracts for ISP services.
> ISPs can increase their revenues by selling this right rather than
> _paying_ to ARIN for being able to exercise this right. All it takes is
> a bunch of reciprocity agreements saying, essentially, "we'll carry
> yours if you carry ours". As soon as one large ISP figures that out,
> this particular political house of cards will go down, quickly.
ISPs are already bundling this right (to use IP addresses) into their
service contracts. I agree 100% that it would not be difficult at all=20
for them to self-assert the IP addresses that they'll be using to one=20
another (particularly post free pool depletion w.r.t IPv4) and have no=20
need for an Internet Registry system. If that's how the community wants=20
to do it and the result provides for effective management of the address=20
space, then I think that's a great outcome: i.e. as always, there's no=20
reason for ARIN to exist unless it serves a useful role to the community.
For the present, the administration of the current needs-based allocation
policy, the policy development process, and online automation work doesn't
seem happen without a regional registry and involved community to drive it.
> With due respect,
Noted.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
