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

"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:53 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Your suggestion that "existing loans may be impacted" means to be ignored 
> for evaluating future allocations does seems a bit superfluous when taken 
> in full context, but obviously must be considered as you are one of the 
> 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 
> 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 
> obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were 
> 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 
> 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 
> should take place in, since it's clear that an overall framework 
> 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.