[136554] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And so it ends...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 3 14:04:38 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <0FDB411B-3687-40F0-B18C-4A2A28ACA51E@queuefull.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:59:10 -0800
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>=20
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:39 AM, John Curran wrote:
>=20
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>>> That's what the RIR might say. But without legal authority (e.g. =
under contract, as a regulator, or through statutory authority) it is =
difficult or impossible to enforce.
>>=20
>> Transfers are permitted in the ARIN region per the community =
developed policies.
>=20
> Understood. My point is: legacy holders, unless they've signed the =
LRSA or equivalent, aren't required to submit to the ARIN process.
>=20
That remains to be seen. If they give up their space, it is unclear that =
they have any right to transfer it to another
organization rather than return it to the successor registry. There is =
no precedent established showing that
this is allowed.
>=20
>>> We can talk about how people "should" return addresses, or "should" =
justify transfers, etc, but we would only be begging. Transfers will =
take place outside the RIR scope, because RIR transfer/market policy =
doesn't accommodate reality.
>>=20
>> Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can =
be reclaimed and reissued.
>=20
> Is any RIR authorized, in a legal sense, to "reclaim" legacy address =
blocks that RIR didn't "issue"? Without that legal authority, is any =
RIR prepared to accommodate the legal damages stemming from =
"reclamation"? (Does the RIR membership support such action, in the =
first place?)
>=20
That remains to be seen. IANA has declared them the successor registries =
for the legacy blocks and there is widespread belief that addresses were =
issued for use and expected to be returned when that use was no longer =
valid.
The other thing to consider is that the RIR doesn't really need to =
"reclaim" the block, per se. They can simply stop providing uniqueness =
to the organizations that don't have a contract with them and issue =
those numbers to some other organization that has a contract. The other =
organization would know that their uniqueness is limited to those =
cooperating in the registry system.
Does an organization that has no contract with an RIR have a right to =
expect that RIR to continue to provide them a unique registration?
Owen
