In the positive side of things, guess we will see IPv6 usage. Joe Klein
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 6:11 PM John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > Sronan - > > I made no claims other than pointing out that IP address blocks in the > ARIN registry are subject to ARIN policies. > > ARIN was formed specifically so that the Internet community could engage > in self-regulation for IP number resources; to wit: "Creation of ARIN will > give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, > corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which > they are managed and allocated within the North American region” [1] – thus > ARIN's policies for management of the registry apply to all resources in > the registry because that was inherent to the purpose to which ARIN was > formed. > > This includes having ARIN "assume full responsibility for Internet > Protocol (IP) number assignments and related administrative tasks > previously handled by NSI.”, whereby ARIN formally became the successor > registry operator for organizational assignments in a long chain that > includes USC/ISI, SRI, GSI, and NSI. > > The community wanted self-governance, and that’s exactly what it got… the > result is a fairly important reason to participate in ARIN policy > development and/or governance if you feel strongly about these matters. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > [1] https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819 - "Internet > Moves Toward Privatization / IP numbers handled by non-profit” > > > On Apr 25, 2021, at 11:38 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: > > So you are claiming that ARIN has jurisdiction over DoD IP space? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:13 AM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > Sronan - > > I’d suggest asking rather than making assertions when it comes to ARIN, as > this will avoid propagating existing misinformation in the community. > > Many US government agencies, including the US Department of Defense, have > signed registration services agreements with ARIN. > > From https://account.arin.net/public/member-list - > > United States Department of Defense (DoD) > > USDDD <https://search.arin.net/rdap?query=USDDD&searchFilter=entity> > > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > On 25 Apr 2021, at 8:54 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: > > Except these DoD blocks don’t fall under ARIM justification, as they > predate ARIN. It is very likely that the DoD has never and will never sign > any sort of ARIN agreement. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 25, 2021, at 3:40 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: > > Mark, > > ARIN rules require every IP space holder to publish accurate — and > effective — Admin, Tech, and Abuse POCs. The DOD hasn’t done this, as I > pointed out, and as you can test for yourself. Your expectation that the > DOD will “generally comply with all of the expected norms” is sorely naive, > and already disproven. > > As far as “why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your > arbitrary standards”, you seem to forget that in the U.S., the government > is accountable to the People. Where a private company may not have to > explain its purposes, the government most certainly does in the private > sector. With these IP spaces being thrust into the civilian realm, yes, > they owe the citizenry an explanation of their actions, just as they would > if they had started mounting missile launchers on highway overpasses. It’s > a direct militarization of a civilian utility. > > Keep in mind that the U.S. Government — under all administrations — has > shown that it will abuse every technical advantage it can, as long as it > can do so in secret. Perhaps you’ve forgotten James Clapper, the former > director of national intelligence, who falsely testified to Congress that > the government does “not wittingly” collect the telephone records of > millions of Americans. And he was just the tip of the iceberg. Before > Clapper under Obama there was the Bush administration’s Stellar Wind" > warrantless surveillance program. The list of government abuse of civilian > resources is colossal . > > Fighting against that isn’t political. It’s patriotic. > > -mel > > On Apr 25, 2021, at 12:02 AM, Mark Foster <blak...@blakjak.net> wrote: > > > > On 25/04/2021 3:24 am, Mel Beckman wrote: > > This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of > transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. I’m going > to bogon this space as a defensive measure, until its real — and detailed — > purpose can be known. The secret places of our government have proven > themselves untrustworthy in the protection of citizens’ data and networks. > They tend to think they know “what’s good for” us. > > -mel > > > Why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your arbitrary > standards, what they intend to do with their IP address ranges? > > Failure to advertise the IP address space to the Internet (until now, > perhaps) doesn't make the address space any less legitimate, and though I'd > expect the DoD to generally comply with all of the expected norms around > BGP arrangements and published whois details, at the end of the day, they > can nominate who should originate it from their AS and as long as we can > see who owns it.... it's just not our business. > > Any organisation who's used DoD space in a way that's likely to conflict > with, well, the DoD, gambled and lost. > > Mark. > > >
