User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Stephen Satchell list at satchell.net
Sun Aug 4 07:12:48 UTC 2019


On 8/3/19 9:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability
> of the ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so
> please carefully consider proposed policy both from the overall
> community benefit being sought, and from the implications faced as a
> number resource holder having to comply oneself with the new
> obligations.

Actually, I would re-write the last part of the last sentence as "...and
from the implications faced as a number resource holder having to comply
oneself with the long-standing and well-known obligations of all network
operators."

I'm a small network operator that has been around and following "the
rules" for many years.  I do understand why you are constrained by the
legal authority you have.  In some respects, I (and others) pine for the
old NSFNET days, when negligence -- particularly willful negligence --
was rewarded with disconnection.

"The rules" have been around for years, and are codified in the RFCs
that are widely published and available to all at zero cost.  (That
wasn't always true, as it wasn't until the DDN Protocol Handbook volumes
were published in 1985 that the RFCs were available to everyone.  I seem
to recall there was an FTP site that provided the RFC documents before
that, but my memory is hazy on that.)  I had access to all the RFCs at
the University of Illinois Center for Advanced Computation, as I was
working at the place as a worker on ARPAnet.

During my career as a web server admin, mail admin, and network admin, I
followed "the rules" strictly.   As the main abuse contact during my
time at a web hosting company, my [email protected] and [email protected] contact
addresses were according to Hoyle, and published with the company ASN,
netblock, and domain registration records.  It took a little convincing
for the owner of the shop to buy in, and to back up my responses to
abuse reports.

I would have expected any ARIN contracts to include by reference the
RFCs that constituted "the rules".  I have never seen the contracts, so
I don't know how they are formulated.  That said, I would have expected
legacy space to fall under "the rules", particularly with respect to
role electronic mail addresses.

I don't have a dog in this fight.  Currently, I don't "own" any IPv4
address space, nor am I running BGP.



More information about the NANOG mailing list