[128757] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Sun Aug 15 16:18:45 2010
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:18:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <m28w47ljyg.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 15, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>=20
> as a reader of this thread with any memory can clearly see, when i asked
> about a change to the lrsa (with which you clearly disagree), i was told
> to submit a suggestion and to go through the policy process.
>=20
> when you want a change to the same agreement, whammy, it can magically
> be done with a quick internal process.
Randy -=20
I understand your confusion. If you find a typo, or grammatical error,
or phrase which is contradictory, I can fix it the next version. If you=20
have a suggestion for LRSA content change, please use the suggestion=20
process or take it up at a meeting as you prefer.
For the particular change that you want, I was noting that NRPM 4.1
(not 6.4.1 as I wrote) specifically cites RFC 2050:
> 4.1.7. RFC 2050
>=20
> ARIN takes guidance from allocation and assignment policies and procedure=
s set forth in RFC 2050. These guidelines were developed to meet the needs =
of the larger Internet community in conserving scarce IPv4 address space an=
d allowing continued use of existing Internet routing technologies.
and as a result, you should look to the IETF to update the RFC2050
guidance or the Policy Development process to remove the reference.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
----
Begin forwarded message:
> From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
> Date: August 15, 2010 6:49:12 AM EDT
> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
>=20
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>=20
>>>> gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
>>> Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
>>=20
>> oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
>> lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just remove it.=20
>=20
> Easy to do, you can either:=20
>=20
> 1) Change the appropriate policy language (NRPM 6.4.1) via the ARIN polic=
y=20
> development process, in which case the LRSA will be updated as noted, o=
r=20
>=20
> 2) If you feel that you'd prefer a different forum, you can address this =
on a =20
> more global basis (since each RIR has similar language regarding addres=
ses)=20
> by going through the IETF and revising the RFCs, which will likely resu=
lt=20
> in the RIRs all reviewing their documents accordingly.
>=20
> Either route requires that the community comes to a consensus on the chan=
ge=20
> and can give you the results you seek. Or you can enjoy the status quo.
>=20
> /John
>=20
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>=20
> p.s. If you want to continue to discuss, can we shortly move this to PPML=
=20
> or ARIN-Discuss for the sake of those not interested in these matters
> who have different expectations from their NANOG list subscription?
>=20
