Lightly used IP addresses
owen at delong.com
Sun Aug 15 15:44:18 UTC 2010
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> between meetings, this topic is probably best suited for the arin-discuss mailing
>> list as opposed to the nanog list.
> Is arin-discuss still a closed members-only list? I pay ARIN every
> year for my AS# registration but the last time I asked to join
> arin-discuss, I was refused because I wasn't a LIR, thus not a member.
> Please: don't ask folks to take discussions of public concern to a closed forum.
ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern. Non-LIR resource holders can become members for $500 per year.
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 5:53 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:20 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> It has been depressing to watch participants in ARIN
>>> (in particular) suggest all will be well if people would just
>>> sign away their rights via an LRSA,
>> Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific
>> contractual rights which take precedence over present policy or any
>> policy that might be made which would otherwise limit such rights:
> A strict (albeit ridiculous) reading of the LRSA says that if I
> bit-torrent some music using my LRSA-covered IP addresses and lose in
> court (4.d.ii) ARIN can terminate the contract (14.b.i) and revoke the
> numbers (14.e.i). In fact, any way I run afoul of ARIN's ever changing
> policies (15.d) leads to 14.b and 14.e.1. Not that ARIN would, of
> course, but the contract gives them the power.
> Absent the LRSA, the status quo leaves ARIN unable to revoke and
> reassign legacy IP addresses without placing itself at major risk,
> requiring a litigious rather than contractual resolution to exactly
> what rights ARIN and the legacy registrants have. My defacto rights
> are less certain but rather more extensive than what the LRSA offers.
You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way back to Postel's original notebook. Postel himself is on record stating that disused addresses should be returned.
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>> the fact is that the lrsa does require the legacy holder to sign away
>> rights. and if you assert that they have no special/different rights,
>> then why is [section 9] there?
> Because that's intended to be part of the price, Randy. In exchange
> for gaining enforceable rights with respect to ARIN's provision of
> services, you quit any claim to your legacy addresses as property,
> just like with all the addresses allocated in the last decade and a
> half. The other part of the price was supposed to be the $100 annual
I would say you acknowledge the lack of such a claim in the first place rather than quit claim. Thus you are not giving up anything and the only actual price is $100 per year with very limited possible increases over future years.
> Unfortunately, the LRSA contains another price which I personally
> consider too high: voluntary termination revokes the IP addresses
> instead of restoring the pre-contract status quo. Without that
> balancing check to the contract, I think a steady creep in what ARIN
> requires of the signatory is inevitable... and the affirmative actions
> ARIN can require the registrant to perform in order to maintain the
> contract are nearly unlimited.
I believe the LRSA limits them primarily to the annual fee payment. It's actually written to make it pretty hard, if not impossible, for policy changes to affect signatories in such a way. Arguably, non-signatories have exactly the same set of rights as RSA signatories, while LRSA signatories enjoy significant additional rights.
Any belief that non-signatories enjoy rights not present in the RSA is speculative at best.
> Bill Herrin
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the NANOG