[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:24:01PM -0500, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >    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.
> To the extent that the operator community does not participate 
> in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts 
> not to participate in the open policy development process in the 
> Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make 
> sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality.  
> Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for 
> the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly 
> consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs 
> into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes.
> (my humble opinion alone)
> /John

	yeah... we are sharing opinions here.. :)

	the only analogy i can draw here is one of "land-grant" vs 
	"eminent-domain" in the real estate world.  in the case where
	an entity recevied an allocation at some point (being justified 
	under then then current policy) it is going to take a bit of
	work to justify expropriation just 'cause the policy has changed...
	unless of course the RIR is willing to pay the fair market value 
	to the holder to reclaim the space.

	this report suggests that the question is not RIR specific.

	but thats just me.