[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 09:12:53PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:33 PM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the policies
> > under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps?
> Bill -
> RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system framework. Jon Postel is an author of same, as well as a founder of ARIN.
yup.. i was there when it was written. what is not clear in that RFC is the status and
effect of RFC 2050 (and subsiquent policy built on that foundation) on allocations made
-prior- to RFC 2050.
telling text is here:
"This document describes the IP assignment policies currently used by
the Regional Registries to implement the guidelines developed by the
It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA or other
registries prior to the RIRs existance.
oddly enough, the year prior to RFC 2050 being published, jon asked me to run
a specialized address registry for things like exchange points. that service
matched the subject of this thread... we didn't own any infrastrucuture, but
we provided (and successors still provide) neutral address management services
to those who wish it. it took the RIR system a few years to catch up and provide
a similar service.
> We've adhered to these principles from RFC 2050 in address management without exception, and even in policy development today.
a firm foundation on which to build.
> When you speak of the policies of
> old allocations, please be specific. If they predated Jon, that would indeed be quite interesting.
well - jon did point out the butcher-paper agreement, signed by all the grad students,
agreeing that jon was the address maven... so anything pre-dating jon would be a trick.
(the actual document is in the postel archives ... if you are interested...)
i beleive i have produced for ARIN a letter from SRI to me - indicating that certain
address blocks were given to me to use. No reference to an entity other than me, no
claim for compliance with "justified need" or "acceptable-use", no indication that any
subsiquant policy would be binding in the future. Pretty much, "we are sorry that you
were forced to renumber 'cause we messed up w/ the -connected/unconneted- databases -
please take these blocks as a token of our consideration..." Doesn't sound like RFC 2050
fodder to me.
This type of letter flies in the face of current policy; allocations to legal entities
that are not natural persons, justified need, requirements to periodically check in and
re-affirm usage & compliance.... I just think that there are going to be turbulent
waters when the ARIN community pushes to hard to force these folk into their (narrow)
framework of acceptable use. I wish it was not so - but I am persuaded that it will
be inevitable - given the current course of events.
> John Curran
> President and CEO