[136886] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Feb 6 01:25:17 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <DACC5CEE-0589-4F61-BDE2-845E2A1FDE11@arin.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 20:25:04 -1000
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
John,
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> 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)?
Last I checked, the other four authors of RFC 2050 are still alive. Why =
not ask them?=20
> Further, RFC 2050 states "The transfer of IP addresses from one party =
to another=20
> must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to =
obtain the IP=20
> address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP =
address=20
> directly from the IR." =20
I'm curious: when HP acquired the assets of Compaq (or when Compaq =
acquired the assets of Digital), is it your position that HP (or =
Compaq) "met the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address =
directly from the IR." for 16.0.0.0/8?
Regards,
-drc
