[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:40 PM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> 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.
Excellent; it could prove helpful in clarifying things.
> It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA or other
> registries prior to the RIRs existance.
Is it your belief that Jon did not intend RFC 2050 to apply to the existing
allocations maintained by the three regional registries in existence at the
time (InterNIC, RIPE NCC and APNIC)?
I imagine that is plausible, but it would run contrary to the language which
states that assignments should be viewed as loans and "to this end, ISPs should
have documented justification available for each assignment. The regional registry
may, at any time, ask for this information. If the information is not available,
future allocations may be impacted. In extreme cases, existing loans may be impacted."
I'm having trouble understanding how *existing* allocations could be impacted
if existing registry allocations were not covered. Or are you suggesting that
RFC 2050 applies, but there is a select set of ISP allocations that were outside
of InterNIC, APNIC, and RIPE NCC to which special handling is applied?
Further, RFC 2050 states "The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another
must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP
address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address
directly from the IR." Even one were to hypothecate some type of address space
that could be the *source* of a transfer due to a mystical handling status, how
could any party be the *recipient* of such without demonstrating need to one of
the regional registries per the second referenced text? Is this also a case
where it was meant to exclude some special parties but just did not get stated
in the actual RFC 2050 text?
President and CEO