On 2/5/2011 4:53 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
*Since ARIN policy at the current time requires specified transfers be
made through ARIN,
and the recipient of address has to meet a utilization criterion.
No ad-hoc transfers would seem to be allowed by current ARIN policies,
except non-permanent reassignm
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
> ARIN allows legacy holders to update their registration information, in
> fact, we even allow such via ARIN Online. No agreement is required with
> ARIN; we provide this service as well as WHOIS and reverse DNS without charge.
> If you
James -
ARIN allows legacy holders to update their registration information, in
fact, we even allow such via ARIN Online. No agreement is required with ARIN;
we provide this service as well as WHOIS and reverse DNS without charge.
If you no longer want to use your address space, you m
John,
It seams that by stating "Note that ARIN can't allow transfers contrary to the
community-developed policy" that you intend to say that ARIN, based on your
current policies and processes, will not actively update whois information for
legacy block holders that either "sub-assign" or "Transf
>
>the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW...
No reason to play coy... (ep.net)
> --bill
>
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:54:42PM +, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> > My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
> > already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
> > [ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expe
Robert,
On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> As far as I am aware, the USG contract is with ICANN, not ARIN (see
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/ianacontract_081406.pdf,
>> section C.2.2.1.3).
>
> Correct. _They_ can can delegate "as they see fit", with no r
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> I strongly suspect that his question is actually "Does ARIN have any
> enforceable legal authority to compel an entity to cease using a
> specific block of address space, absent a contract?"
ARIN has about as much to do with legally compelling
> Subject: Re: And so it ends...
> From: David Conrad
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:42:01 -1000
> Cc: NANOG list
> To: Robert Bonomi
>
> Robert,
>
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > Abssolutely *NOT*. their unique status derives from
If you want to follow it up there's a pretty interesting thread
ongoing in the ripe anti abuse working group
All of the traffic from 2011 (only a few posts) ..
http://ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2011/
Start with this note here -
http://ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-abus
Robert,
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Abssolutely *NOT*. their unique status derives from the actions of a
> contractor "faithfully executing" it's duties on the behalf of the U.S.
> Gov't. 'Antitrust' does not apply to the Gov't, nor to those acting
> on its behalf, nor t
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ernie Rubi wrote:
>> Um, I think that's what ARIN means when they say changing the registrant on
>> a block from Entity A to Entity B means. That's effectively 'reclaiming'.
>>
>> As I understand it, I think th
On Feb 3, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Having said that, it should be clear that I view ARIN "reclaiming" legacy
> addresses that aren't under contract (i.e. LRSA) as fraud, perhaps even in
> the legal sense of the word. It might also be considered theft by some. But
> outrigh
On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:22 PM, John Curran wrote:
> To be clear, that's not ARIN "legally compelling an entity to cease using
> a specific block of address space" We've never claimed that authority,
> and I'm not aware of any entity that does claim such authority to compel
> organizations to make
On Feb 3, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> Abssolutely *NOT*. their unique status derives from the actions of a
> contractor "faithfully executing" it's duties on the behalf of the U.S.
> Gov't. 'Antitrust' does not apply to the Gov't, nor to those acting
> on its behalf, nor to anyon
On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:29 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:42 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> Second, neither ICANN nor the USG has (to my knowledge) declared the RIRs to
>> be "successor registries" (whatever they are).
>
> David - ARIN succeeded Network Solutions in 1997 in the per
On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Abssolutely *NOT*. their unique status derives from the actions of a
> contractor "faithfully executing" it's duties on the behalf of the U.S.
> Gov't. 'Antitrust' does not apply to the Gov't, nor to those acting
> on its behalf, nor to anyone
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Kevin Stange wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 11:41 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>> I'm not inclined to believe that ARIN members will collectively agree
>> on anything significant, so the policy process is a lot like U.S.
>> government (not a lot getting done).
>
> ARIN members do
> Subject: Re: And so it ends...
> From: Ernie Rubi
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:08:50 -0500
> To: David Conrad
> Cc: NANOG list
>
> Way off topic here...and into the legal arena:
>
> As to the monopoly classification, do you think, at least with ARIN
> (since i
On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:42 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Second, neither ICANN nor the USG has (to my knowledge) declared the RIRs to
> be "successor registries" (whatever they are).
David - ARIN succeeded Network Solutions in 1997 in the performance of IP
number assignment, Autonomous System number
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:52 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:39:25 PST, George Herbert said:
>
>> It's probably most practical for them to renumber into a subset of
>> their existing space, collapsing down from the whole /8 into a /10 or
>> something longer, which would free up 75% of that spa
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:39:25 PST, George Herbert said:
> It's probably most practical for them to renumber into a subset of
> their existing space, collapsing down from the whole /8 into a /10 or
> something longer, which would free up 75% of that space or more.
And they want to go to the trouble
> But are they going to go up against someone big?
>
> Do Lilly, DuPont and Merck need /8? HP need a /7?
You decide. Make a policy proposal, if enough agree the database
changes and is reflected in many ISP networks.
"we route therefore you are"
I imagine (ianal) they would have to sue every I
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
> Pragmatically, compelling the release of a legacy allocation to a
> major company could be difficult, however, if the ARIN community were
> to draft a resolution to reclaim the space it may have a profound
> effect on public sentiment toward th
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Ernie Rubi wrote:
> Way off topic here...and into the legal arena:
>
> As to the monopoly classification, do you think, at least with ARIN (since it
> is a US/Virginia corporation) that Sherman Act §2 (i.e. antitrust) principles
> could be applied to require that
Jay,
We were talking about the legacy disbursements here at the office
much of the day. It would certainly be *nice* if some of the folks who
were granted a class A back in the day would throw the unused parts back
in the community bin. I don't think its a good idea to try and force
the
Way off topic here...and into the legal arena:
As to the monopoly classification, do you think, at least with ARIN (since it
is a US/Virginia corporation) that Sherman Act §2 (i.e. antitrust) principles
could be applied to require that it relinquish some of the control over said IP
space/databa
David,
That certainly could have an impact, since I imagine that
corporations that large are purchasing nice big (expensive)
connections. Having said that the cases I am familiar with were all
dealt with at the technical level and a "business" rep wasn't involved.
The BGP teams at the v
I don't think that's ARIN's position (someone correct me if I'm wrong),
especially if you mean to say they having the same 'rights' as RIRs to
transfer/assign/lease/delegate/port those IP numbers. Using the numbers you
have is another thing entirely.
On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wr
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Scott Helms wrote:
My 2 cents, in the few cases that we've been involved with that dealt with
reclaiming space the backbone providers have universally followed what is in
If that legacy block holder were, well, one of the legacy block holders,
would you as a backbone provi
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Helms"
> My 2 cents, in the few cases that we've been involved with that dealt
> with reclaiming space the backbone providers have universally followed
> what is in the ARIN database. If you need a block routed they generally
> will not take action unti
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ernie Rubi wrote:
> Um, I think that's what ARIN means when they say changing the registrant on a
> block from Entity A to Entity B means. That's effectively 'reclaiming'.
>
> As I understand it, I think they also contend that the 'community' could say
> to ARIN
Um, I think that's what ARIN means when they say changing the registrant on a
block from Entity A to Entity B means. That's effectively 'reclaiming'.
As I understand it, I think they also contend that the 'community' could say to
ARIN 'take back X legacy block' and that ARIN would have no cho
On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> That remains to be seen. If they give up their space, it is unclear that they
> have any right to transfer it to another
> organization rather than return it to the successor registry. There is no
> precedent established showing that
> this is allo
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "John Curran"
>
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> To be clear, that's not ARIN "legally compelling an entity to cease using
>> a specific block of address space" We've never claimed tha
My 2 cents, in the few cases that we've been involved with that dealt
with reclaiming space the backbone providers have universally followed
what is in the ARIN database. If you need a block routed they generally
will not take action until the SWIP is complete and the same is true
when pulling
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "John Curran"
>
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> > I strongly suspect that his question is actually "Does ARIN have any
>> > enforceable legal authority to compel an entity to cease us
- Original Message -
> From: "John Curran"
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> To be clear, that's not ARIN "legally compelling an entity to cease using
> a specific block of address space" We've never claimed that authority,
> and I'm not aware of any entity that does cla
On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "John Curran"
>
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> I strongly suspect that his question is actually "Does ARIN have any
>>> enforceable legal authority to compel an entity to cease using a
- Original Message -
> From: "John Curran"
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > I strongly suspect that his question is actually "Does ARIN have any
> > enforceable legal authority to compel an entity to cease using a
> > specific block of address space, absent a contract
On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> I strongly suspect that his question is actually "Does ARIN have any
> enforceable legal authority to compel an entity to cease using a
> specific block of address space, absent a contract?"
ARIN has the authority to manage its database, and do
That's the question, and it seemed that the answer started to be formulated in
terms of 'community acquiescence/policy leads to authority' in a previous
email, so I wanted to make sure that was in fact the response to the question,
at least in part.
ARIN will likely argue that 'this was done al
On 2/3/2011 14:16, John Curran wrote:
> then answer is that the database is managed as part of ARIN's mission, per
> policies established by the community.
>
> If you're trying to ask a different question, I'm more than happy to
> answer, but I'd ask that you be more explicit.
>
> On Feb 3, 2011,
- Original Message -
> From: "John Curran"
> Mr. Rubi -
>
> I'm sorry if my answer is not clear.
>
> If your question was: "What is the source of ARIN's legal authority to
> manage the ARIN WHOIS database?"
>
> then answer is that the database is managed as part of ARIN's mission,
> pe
Mr. Rubi -
I'm sorry if my answer is not clear.
If your question was: "What is the source of ARIN's legal authority to
manage the ARIN WHOIS database?"
then answer is that the database is managed as part of ARIN's mission, per
policies established by the community.
If you're tr
On 03/02/11 10:38 -0500, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
And we have yet to see what happens with backend transactions between
private institutions that have large blocks laying around, and them
realizing that they have a marketable and valuable thing.
On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:39 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>>> That's what the RIR might say. But without legal authority (e.g. under
>>> contract, as a regulator, or through statutory aut
I think it's OK to say you cannot/would rather not answer the question, instead
of giving a non-answer. I was trying to follow along with your 'the community
acquiescence gives us the legal right to take back legacy IP addresses'
argument.
Cheers,
Ernie
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:58 PM, John Curr
On 02/03/2011 11:41 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> I'm not inclined to believe that ARIN members will collectively agree
> on anything significant, so the policy process is a lot like U.S.
> government (not a lot getting done).
ARIN members don't make binding votes on individual policy actions, they
el
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Ernie Rubi wrote:
> OK so the argument is the 'community' is ARIN's source of legal power or is
> the corporate laws of the State of Virginia?
Mr. Rubi -
ARIN operates the ARIN WHOIS database as part of the mission of
organization in serving the community, and
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Benson Schliesser
wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can be
reclaimed and reissued.
>>>
>>> Is any RIR aut
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
[ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this to continue and spread. Ev
In a message written on Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 07:48:45PM +0300, Alexandre
Snarskii wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:04:29AM -0500, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> > Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3.
> > On February 3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson
>
OK so the argument is the 'community' is ARIN's source of legal power or is the
corporate laws of the State of Virginia?
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>>> Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources c
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can be
reclaimed and reissued.
>>>
>>> Is any RIR authori
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>>> Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can be
>>> reclaimed and reissued.
>>
>> Is any RIR authorized, in a legal sense, to "reclaim" legacy address blocks
>> t
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3. On February
> 3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson (aka The Big Bopper)
> died in a plane crash. Don McLean immortalized that day as "The Day The M
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can be
>> reclaimed and reissued.
>
> Is any RIR authorized, in a legal sense, to "reclaim" legacy address blocks
> that RIR didn't "issue"? Without that legal authority, is
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
> already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
> [ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this to continue and spread. Eventually,
> holders of large legacy
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:04:29AM -0500, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3.
> On February 3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson
> (aka The Big Bopper) died in a plane crash. Don McLean immortalized
> that day as "
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:39 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> That's what the RIR might say. But without legal authority (e.g. under
>> contract, as a regulator, or through statutory authority) it is difficult or
>> impossible to enforce.
>
> Trans
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3. On February
> 3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson (aka The Big Bopper)
> died in a plane crash. Don McLean immortalized that day as "The Day The Mu
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> That's what the RIR might say. But without legal authority (e.g. under
> contract, as a regulator, or through statutory authority) it is difficult or
> impossible to enforce.
Transfers are permitted in the ARIN region per the community dev
For all you folks mourning the demise of IPv4, could you PLEASE
transfer those old, used, not useful to you anymore IPv4 blocks
to me ... PLEASE? Pretty Please?
just saying.
--bill
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's
become irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and
things become less stable as lots of orgs rush to implement a str
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
>>> irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resourc
On Feb 3, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>> The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
>> irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
>> less stable as lots of orgs rus
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>> The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
>> irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
>> less stable as lots of orgs rus
Folks,
Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3. On February
3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson (aka The Big Bopper) died
in a plane crash. Don McLean immortalized that day as "The Day The Music Died"
in his 1971 hit, "American Pie".
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> And we have yet to see what happens with backend transactions between private
> institutions that have large blocks laying around, and them realizing that
> they have a marketable and valuable thing. We may all say it won't happen, we
> m
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
> irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
> less stable as lots of orgs rush to implement a strange new IP version.
Supposedly[*] transfe
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> 102/8 AfriNIC2011-02whois.afrinic.net ALLOCATED
> 103/8 APNIC 2011-02whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
> 104/8 ARIN 2011-02whois.arin.netALLOCATED
> 179/8 LACNIC 2011-02whois.lacnic.net ALLOCATED
> 185/8
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
And we have yet to see what happens with backend transactions between
private institutions that have large blocks laying around, and them
realizing that they have a marketable and valuable thing. We may all say
it won't happen, we may even say we don'
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
less stable as lots of orgs rush to implement a strange new IP version.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Wil Schultz wrote:
It's been a fun ride, adios good
And we have yet to see what happens with backend transactions between private
institutions that have large blocks laying around, and them realizing that they
have a marketable and valuable thing. We may all say it won't happen, we may
even say we don't want it to happen, or that it shouldn't be
Still a few LEGACY in the status column ;-)
-M
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
> 102/8 AfriNIC2011-02whois.afrinic.net ALLOCATED
> 103/8 APNIC 2011-02whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
> 104/8 ARIN 2011-02whois.arin.netALLOCATED
> 179/8 LACNIC
It's been a fun ride, adios good friend.
-wil
On Feb 3, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
> 102/8 AfriNIC2011-02whois.afrinic.net ALLOCATED
> 103/8 APNIC 2011-02whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
> 104/8 ARIN 2011-02whois.arin.netALLOCATED
> 179/8 LACNIC
77 matches
Mail list logo
