ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Fri Apr 9 16:59:17 UTC 2010

> 
> Put less tersely:
> 
> We were assigned space, under a policy whose purpose was primarily to
> guarantee uniqueness in IPv4 numbering.  As with other legacy holders,
> we obtained portable space to avoid the technical problems associated
> with renumbering, problems with in-addr.arpa subdelegation, etc.
> 
So far, correct.

> Part of that was an understanding that the space was ours (let's not
> get distracted by any "ownership" debate, but just agree for the sake
> of this point that it was definitely understood that we'd possess it).
> This served the good of the Internet by promoting stability within an
> AS and allowed us to spend engineering time on finer points (such as 
> maintaining PTR's) rather than renumbering gear every time we changed
> upstreams.
> 
This is fictitious unless you are claiming that your allocation predates:

RFC2050	November, 1996
RFC1466	May, 1993
RFC1174	August, 1990

Prior to that, it was less clear, but, the concept was still generally
justified need so long as that need persisted.

> Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various
> directions.  ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC.
> Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to
> ARIN.
> 
Actually, ARIN was spun off from InterNIC (containing most of the same
staff that had been doing the job at InterNIC) well before InterNIC was
disbanded.

> ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders.
> It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's
> end of things.  However, it's likely that they've concluded that they
> better do so, because if they don't, it'll probably turn into a costly
> legal battle on many fronts, and I doubt ARIN has the budget for that.
> 
This is going to be one of those situations that could become a
legal battle on many fronts either way.  On the one hand you have
legacy holders who have no contractual right to services from
anyone (If you want to pursue InterNIC for failing to live up to
whatever agreement you have/had with them, I wish you the
very best of luck in that endeavor, especially since you don't
have a written contract from them, either).

On the other hand, in a relatively short timeframe, you are likely
to have litigants asking why ARIN has failed to reclaim/reuse
the underutilized IPv4 space sitting in so many legacy registrations.

Which of those two bodies of litigants is larger or better funded
is left as an exercise for the reader. Nonetheless, ARIN is
going to be in an interesting position between those two
groups (which one is rock and which is hard place is also
left as an exercise for the reader) going forward regardless
of what action is taken by ARIN in this area.

That is why the legacy RSA is important. It represents ARIN
trying very hard to codify and defend the rights of the legacy
holders.

> As a legacy holder, we don't really care who is currently "responsible"
> for legacy maintenance/etc.  However, whoever it is, if they're not
> going to take on those responsibilities, that's a problem.
> 
You assume that anyone is currently responsible.  What documentation
do you have that there is any such responsibility?

As a point in fact, ARIN has, for the good of the community, extended
the courtesy of maintaining those records and providing services
to legacy holders free of charge because it is perceived as being
in the best interests of the community.

> The previous poster asked, "If you don't have a contract with ARIN, 
> why should ARIN provide you with anything?"
> 
> Well, the flip side to that is, "ARIN doesn't have a contract with us,
> but we still have copies of the InterNIC policies under which we were
> assigned space, and ARIN undertook those duties, so ARIN is actually 
> the one with significant worries if they were to try to pull anything,
> otherwise, we don't really care."
> 
Could you please provide those to Steve Ryan, John Curran, and,
ideally, I'd like to see them too.

> Is that a suitable defense of that statement (which might not have
> been saying quite what you thought)?
> 
I don't know.  I have yet to see the content of the documents which
you claim are your defense.

Owen