[128766] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Aug 15 23:36:07 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <73403.1281901906@localhost>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:30:54 -0700
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> 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
> We've written RFCs that explain SHOULD !=3D MUST.
>=20
> Keep in mind that he said that back in a long-bygone era where sending =
an
> e-mail asking "If you're not going to deploy that address range, can =
you give
> it back just because it's the Right Thing To Do, even though there's a =
chance
> that 15 years from now, you'll be able to sell it for megabucks" =
didn't get 53
> levels of management and lawyers involved.
>=20
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:33:34 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> A contract which clarifies that you still don't have rights you never
>> had does not constitute relinquishing those non-existent rights no
>> matter how many times you repeat yourself.
>=20
> Ahh - but here's the kicker. For the contract to clarify the status =
of that
> right, it *is* admitting that the right exists and has a definition =
(even if
> not spelled out in the contract). A non-existent thing can't be the =
subject
> of a contract negotiation. So in the contract, you can agree that you =
don't
> have right XYZ, and clarify that you understand you never had right =
XYZ.
> But it doesn't make sense if XYZ is nonexistent.
>=20
There are lots of contracts which clarify that inaccuracies previously =
perceived
as rights are, indeed, and always were, fictitious in nature. That is =
possible
in a contract and is not as uncommon as one would wish it were.
It does not magically lend credence to the prior fiction.
Owen
