On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > So I wonder.... rhetorically speaking.. what happens when a bankruptcy > court accidentally sells something that doesn't actually exist, > ... > Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community > participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
There are a small number of examples, of intellectual property that exists solely by convention and yet has value. But you're correct: the property structure of IP addresses is ambiguous. We never had to define it because we had free supply, but times are changing. > Meaning if MS has an RSA in force, all their resources should be compliant > with ARIN policies, and all transfer policies should be followed with regards > to justified need. If I recall correctly, the ARIN RSA only applies to resources acquired from ARIN. It's a contract for ARIN services and doesn't cover legacy blocks, blocks from other RIRs, etc - it doesn't automatically extend ARIN's authority. On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:34 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > If ARIN reassigned the space, and Microsoft continued to announce it anyway, > would either announcing entity be have enough of a critical mass > that the conflict wouldn't matter to it ? > > I would submit that any address assignments with continual major operational > issues arising from assignment conflicts would not be very attractive. > > I also don't think that that would be good for the Internet. I agree. Which is why ARIN should keep their Whois updated with accurate data, rather than fighting for control of resources beyond RSA scope. Cheers, -Benson
