ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
owen at delong.com
Thu Apr 8 13:55:51 CDT 2010
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA?
> ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the
> event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled
Let's clarify here, however...
Nothing guarantees you that ARIN can not do so if you don't have any
contract with them.
There is a common fiction that ARIN somehow grants right to use or
otherwise gives/transfers/leases/etc. Addresses. That is not the case.
ARIN provides a REGISTRATION service which merely guarantees
that neither ARIN, nor any of the other cooperating participants in
the IANA/RIR system will register the same numbers to someone
So, that clause really states that ARIN reserves the right to invalidate
your registration if ARIN feels you are no longer playing by the rules
under which that registration was granted.
ARIN doesn't have the power to directly prevent you from using the
address space. They merely have the ability to let the world know
that it is no longer registered to you, and, the ability to register it
to someone else.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no legal reason ARIN could
not do this with any legacy registration which is not the subject of
an RSA or LRSA, as I do not believe there is a legal obligation for
ARIN to provide services to customers without a service contract.
I'm not saying that ARIN will or should do such a thing, but, signing
the LRSA is about the only way to insure that ARIN can't do such
a thing to your legacy resources.
The "perceived" rights of legacy holders are dubious at best. The
LRSA does not take any actual rights away, merely enumerates
a very small number of the limitations that also exist without a
>> Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you?
> Probably not. SMTP is the only major service any more that cares. But
> that's immaterial; ending RDNS for legacy registrants has been an
> empty threat from the day the notion was first hatched.
Sure... I'm not advocating any such thing, either. The point being that
while I think continuing to provide a free ride to IPv4 legacy holders
is a good idea, there is no reason to continue that concept into the
IPv6 world. I would like to see fee waivers for IPv6 initial assignment
fees to legacy holders who sign the LRSA. I think that would be a
good incentive for both the LRSA and IPv6 adoption.
However, when I suggested that, there was some negative feedback
from the community and I don't think the idea achieved clear
consensus for or against.
More information about the NANOG