[136940] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Feb 6 17:32:35 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <302202D5-A0C2-4BD9-B08B-A376A3174926@arin.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:32:15 -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
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:53 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Your suggestion that "existing loans may be impacted" means to be =
ignored=20
> for evaluating future allocations does seems a bit superfluous when =
taken=20
> in full context, but obviously must be considered as you are one of =
the=20
> authors.
I believe (it has been 15 years after all) the idea was that if an ISP =
didn't update the registry with new assignments, the RIR could in =
extreme cases remove previously submitted reassignment information as =
punishment (the theory being that this would cause the ISP's customers =
to take action). Again, this wording is in a section that is discussing =
sub-delegation guidelines for ISPs who received an allocation from the =
RIRs. How are you "reinterpreting" section 2.1.3?
> Do you have any similar suggestions for how to reinterpret the =
transfer=20
> section, i.e. " The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another
> must be approved by the regional registries." or "The party trying to=20=
> obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were=20
> requesting an IP address directly from the IR." ?
As opposed to section 2, section 4.7 seems pretty unambiguous to me: it =
was an attempt by the registries at the time to conserve the remaining =
IPv4 free pool by disallowing the bypassing of registry allocation =
restrictions. Do you "reinterpret" it differently?
> It certainly would be worth considering revising to maintain the=20
> portions which are an inherent technical requirements from IAB/IETF
> versus those which are a snapshot of registry policy at the time.
I hear Mark McFadden, since he hated his life, was working on 2050bis... =
:-)
More seriously, RFC 2050 was an attempt to document the then current (in =
1996) practices for allocating IPv4 addresses. Instead of revising that =
15 year old document, I'd think a document that describes the role and =
responsibilities of the registries in a post-IPv4 free pool world would =
be much more valuable. My impression is that there is a bit of a =
disconnect between the folks who go to RIR meetings and the folks who =
have IP addresses (particularly those folks who received their addresses =
prior to the existence of the RIRs). Might be useful to remedy this.
> It also is interesting to consider which forum(s) such an activity=20
> should take place in, since it's clear that an overall framework=20
> is necessary for the system to keep working globally.
Yeah, too bad no one set up an organization whose By-Laws and Mission is =
to coordinate, at an overall level, the global Internet's systems of =
unique identifiers capable of providing such a forum.
Regards,
-drc
