[136816] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Sat Feb 5 11:22:39 2011
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:22:21 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
In-Reply-To: <9FD4A48D-B17D-461B-8EF9-0D3F94CAB98F@arin.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:40:44PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >> For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform
> >> in the presence of such activity ("leasing" IP addresses by ISP not providing
> >> connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply
> >> be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent
> >> transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is
> >> set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful.
> >> ...
> >
> > the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW...
>
> Good to know; it makes its omission from RFC2050 even more significant and
> highlights the need for clear policy in this area. Ultimately, the question
> is simply how the operator community wishes to have this treated, and there
> should be alignment between that consensus and the number resource policy.
>
> /John
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) "blind-spots" when it comes to
operational reality.
and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single
consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's
just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be
a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by
a particular type of network operator.
--bill
