[20263] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP allocations, renumbering, and RFC 2050
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Thu Oct 8 08:55:04 1998
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:41:09 -0500
From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
To: Bradley Reynolds <brad@null0.qual.net>,
Jeremy Porter <jerry@freeside.fc.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981008022433.19758B-100000@null0.qual.net>; from Bradley Reynolds on Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 02:36:06AM +0000
You're missing the point. RFC2008 is the one which recognizes legacy
delegations as providing ownership (and therefore property rights).
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl
I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give
up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 02:36:06AM +0000, Bradley Reynolds wrote:
> > But seriously I would suggest that you would have some expectation
> > of rights due to RFC2050 as much as any properity rights exist for
> > so called legacy addresses.
> >
> After taking a cursory glance at RFC2050, i happened upon
> the ambiguous and unintelligable wording 'best current
> practice'. Even though the definition of this term was thoroughly
> obfuscated, i did not find LAW or JESUS SPAKE preceding any
> of the edicts contained within the mentioned rfc.
>
>
> > At any rate it sounds like a unilaterial contract change by CW,
> > which may be unenforcable. I'd just continue to announce the
> > more specifics for 6 months just to make it as difficult as possible
> > for CW to re-use them.
> >
> No one will listen to your announcements because you don't matter.
>
> > It won't win CW and friends that's for sure. (hello AGIS/Net99, anyone?)
> >
> you don't need friends when people _need_ to reach your network.
>
>
>
> On an operationally related question:
>
> Do grammar and nanog go hand-in-hand or is nanog becoming (has always
> been?) a forum for the functionally illiterate?
>
> BR
>
>
