Lightly used IP addresses

John Curran jcurran at
Sun Aug 15 20:18:09 UTC 2010

On Aug 15, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> as a reader of this thread with any memory can clearly see, when i asked
> about a change to the lrsa (with which you clearly disagree), i was told
> to submit a suggestion and to go through the policy process.
> when you want a change to the same agreement, whammy, it can magically
> be done with a quick internal process.

Randy - 

I understand your confusion.  If you find a typo, or grammatical error,
or phrase which is contradictory, I can fix it the next version.  If you 
have a suggestion for LRSA content change, please use the suggestion 
process or take it up at a meeting as you prefer.

For the particular change that you want, I was noting that NRPM 4.1
(not 6.4.1 as I wrote) specifically cites RFC 2050:

> 4.1.7. RFC 2050
> ARIN takes guidance from allocation and assignment policies and procedures set forth in RFC 2050. These guidelines were developed to meet the needs of the larger Internet community in conserving scarce IPv4 address space and allowing continued use of existing Internet routing technologies.

and as a result, you should look to the IETF to update the RFC2050
guidance or the Policy Development process to remove the reference.


John Curran
President and CEO


Begin forwarded message:

> From: John Curran <jcurran at>
> Date: August 15, 2010 6:49:12 AM EDT
> To: Randy Bush <randy at>
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog at>
> Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
>>> Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
>> oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
>> lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa.  just remove it. 
> Easy to do, you can either: 
> 1) Change the appropriate policy language (NRPM 6.4.1) via the ARIN policy 
>   development process, in which case the LRSA will be updated as noted, or 
> 2) If you feel that you'd prefer a different forum, you can address this on a  
>   more global basis (since each RIR has similar language regarding addresses) 
>   by going through the IETF and revising the RFCs, which will likely result 
>   in the RIRs all reviewing their documents accordingly.
> Either route requires that the community comes to a consensus on the change 
> and can give you the results you seek.  Or you can enjoy the status quo.
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> p.s. If you want to continue to discuss, can we shortly move this to PPML 
>     or ARIN-Discuss for the sake of those not interested in these matters
>     who have different expectations from their NANOG list subscription?

More information about the NANOG mailing list