[136881] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Sun Feb 6 00:34:45 2011
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: "bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com" <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 05:33:49 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20110206014014.GG22325@vacation.karoshi.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:40 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system framewo=
rk. Jon Postel is an author of same, as well as a founder of ARIN.
>=20
> yup.. i was there when it was written.
Excellent; it could prove helpful in clarifying things.
> It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA =
or other
> registries prior to the RIRs existance. =20
Is it your belief that Jon did not intend RFC 2050 to apply to the existing=
=20
allocations maintained by the three regional registries in existence at the
time (InterNIC, RIPE NCC and APNIC)?
I imagine that is plausible, but it would run contrary to the language whic=
h
states that assignments should be viewed as loans and "to this end, ISPs sh=
ould=20
have documented justification available for each assignment. The regional =
registry=20
may, at any time, ask for this information. If the information is not avai=
lable,=20
future allocations may be impacted. In extreme cases, existing loans may be=
impacted."
I'm having trouble understanding how *existing* allocations could be impact=
ed=20
if existing registry allocations were not covered. Or are you suggesting t=
hat=20
RFC 2050 applies, but there is a select set of ISP allocations that were ou=
tside=20
of InterNIC, APNIC, and RIPE NCC to which special handling is applied?
Further, RFC 2050 states "The transfer of IP addresses from one party to an=
other=20
must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain th=
e IP=20
address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP addres=
s=20
directly from the IR." Even one were to hypothecate some type of address s=
pace =20
that could be the *source* of a transfer due to a mystical handling status,=
how=20
could any party be the *recipient* of such without demonstrating need to on=
e of=20
the regional registries per the second referenced text? Is this also a cas=
e=20
where it was meant to exclude some special parties but just did not get sta=
ted=20
in the actual RFC 2050 text?
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
