ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Mon Apr 12 16:07:09 UTC 2010

> On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> > Further, given the purported role that InterNIC played, "exchange of
> > value" as a prerequisite is a rather questionable position to rely on;
> > InterNIC had motivations other than a purely financial one to organize
> > IP allocations.  The number assignment function is critical to allowing
> > the Internet to work smoothly.
> 
> Joe - 
>  
> On this matter we do agree, since allocations prior to ARIN's formation were 
> generally made pursuant to a US Government contract or cooperative agreement.  
> While I don't consider addresses to be property, if you take the opposite view 
> then there's very likely a significant body of procurement law which already 
> applies to property furnished in this manner and would be far more relevant 
> than any documentation that an address block recipient received at the time..

There are all manner of theories.  Some have compared it to physical 
land (possibly apt due to the limited nature of both), or to the way
land was granted to the railroads to spur development, etc.  Spinning
the issue in any of several different ways could land you at wildly
differing results.  I'll bet that significant bodies of relevant law
for each are contradictory and confusing at best.  :-)

Anyways, my original intent was simply to point out that there are some
impediments to IPv6 adoption, somehow this morphed into a larger topic
than intended.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.