[128737] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Aug 15 11:46:04 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinqY1CP4ibF9P0SyC-YQ2RqeKN2nL7bUutShzu4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 -0400
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> =
wrote:
>> https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html
>> In
>> between meetings, this topic is probably best suited for the =
arin-discuss mailing
>> list as opposed to the nanog list.
>=20
> John,
>=20
> Is arin-discuss still a closed members-only list? I pay ARIN every
> year for my AS# registration but the last time I asked to join
> arin-discuss, I was refused because I wasn't a LIR, thus not a member.
>=20
> Please: don't ask folks to take discussions of public concern to a =
closed forum.
>=20
>=20
ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern. Non-LIR =
resource holders can become members for $500 per year.
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 5:53 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:20 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> It has been depressing to watch participants in ARIN
>>> (in particular) suggest all will be well if people would just
>>> sign away their rights via an LRSA,
>>=20
>> Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific
>> contractual rights which take precedence over present policy or any
>> policy that might be made which would otherwise limit such rights:
>=20
> A strict (albeit ridiculous) reading of the LRSA says that if I
> bit-torrent some music using my LRSA-covered IP addresses and lose in
> court (4.d.ii) ARIN can terminate the contract (14.b.i) and revoke the
> numbers (14.e.i). In fact, any way I run afoul of ARIN's ever changing
> policies (15.d) leads to 14.b and 14.e.1. Not that ARIN would, of
> course, but the contract gives them the power.
>=20
> https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf
>=20
> Absent the LRSA, the status quo leaves ARIN unable to revoke and
> reassign legacy IP addresses without placing itself at major risk,
> requiring a litigious rather than contractual resolution to exactly
> what rights ARIN and the legacy registrants have. My defacto rights
> are less certain but rather more extensive than what the LRSA offers.
>=20
You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights =
somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and =
contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way back to =
Postel's original notebook. Postel himself is on record stating that =
disused addresses should be returned.
>=20
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> the fact is that the lrsa does require the legacy holder to sign away
>> rights. and if you assert that they have no special/different =
rights,
>> then why is [section 9] there?
>=20
> Because that's intended to be part of the price, Randy. In exchange
> for gaining enforceable rights with respect to ARIN's provision of
> services, you quit any claim to your legacy addresses as property,
> just like with all the addresses allocated in the last decade and a
> half. The other part of the price was supposed to be the $100 annual
> fee.
>=20
I would say you acknowledge the lack of such a claim in the first place =
rather than quit claim. Thus you are not giving up anything and the only =
actual price is $100 per year with very limited possible increases over =
future years.
> Unfortunately, the LRSA contains another price which I personally
> consider too high: voluntary termination revokes the IP addresses
> instead of restoring the pre-contract status quo. Without that
> balancing check to the contract, I think a steady creep in what ARIN
> requires of the signatory is inevitable... and the affirmative actions
> ARIN can require the registrant to perform in order to maintain the
> contract are nearly unlimited.
>=20
I believe the LRSA limits them primarily to the annual fee payment. It's =
actually written to make it pretty hard, if not impossible, for policy =
changes to affect signatories in such a way. Arguably, non-signatories =
have exactly the same set of rights as RSA signatories, while LRSA =
signatories enjoy significant additional rights.
Any belief that non-signatories enjoy rights not present in the RSA is =
speculative at best.
Owen
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
