Lightly used IP addresses

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Aug 16 03:30:54 UTC 2010

On Aug 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> 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.
> We've written RFCs that explain SHOULD != MUST.
> Keep in mind that he said that back in a long-bygone era where sending an
> e-mail asking "If you're not going to deploy that address range, can you give
> it back just because it's the Right Thing To Do, even though there's a chance
> that 15 years from now, you'll be able to sell it for megabucks" didn't get 53
> levels of management and lawyers involved.
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:33:34 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> A contract which clarifies that you still don't have rights you never
>> had does not constitute relinquishing those non-existent rights no
>> matter how many times you repeat yourself.
> Ahh - but here's the kicker.  For the contract to clarify the status of that
> right, it *is* admitting that the right exists and has a definition (even if
> not spelled out in the contract).  A non-existent thing can't be the subject
> of a contract negotiation.  So in the contract, you can agree that you don't
> have right XYZ, and clarify that you understand you never had right XYZ.
> But it doesn't make sense if XYZ is nonexistent.
There are lots of contracts which clarify that inaccuracies previously perceived
as rights are, indeed, and always were, fictitious in nature. That is possible
in a contract and is not as uncommon as one would wish it were.

It does not magically lend credence to the prior fiction.


More information about the NANOG mailing list