Re: [arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders

Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:01:54 -0800

Hi John,

You were the one who eventually did fix the issue and I do appreciate that.

I don't believe that ARIN today will treat anyone differently than they treated me, as the behavior is based on the rules and regulations that ARIN runs under.  The bar is set too high to allow objects to be updated, especially if they have not been updated in a long time.

I've been around long enough to know a number of resources/objects be it legacy IP assignments or legacy AS numbers that are in use today but still reflect old data.  I believe it would be foolhardy to even attempt to correct the information as it would only cause excess paperwork, wasted time, management sign-offs, possible loss of the resource or worse.

Until there is a change in ARIN's behavior that allows for the acceptance of historical artifacts, the database will never be correct and there is certainly no reason for people who would like to, to try and update the information contained within it.

February 17, 2014 at 2:02 PM
On Feb 17, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Steve Noble <sno...@sonn.com> wrote:


Steve - 
 
  I'll be the first to admit you suffered needlessly, and appreciate your diligence in 
  pursuing the correction with ARIN (as it led to us finding an end case for ASN-
  only resource records.)    For those who might not remember the issue,  read 
  At this time, you should not longer have any problem updating your ASN records,
  and I will apologize again that we did not recognize the issue as a fallout from our
  migration any sooner than we did.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


February 17, 2014 at 1:08 PM
As a holder of both legacy and non-legacy ARIN objects, I have been subject to ARIN's registry update blocks on _non-legacy_ objects that I rightfully control and use.  I spent years (6 I believe) fighting with ARIN to update the information on one of my ASNs while ARIN continued to bill me for a 'service' which they did not provide.  ARIN's unwillingness to update the database to have correct contact information is not only an undesirable effect of their policies, but also an indication of ARIN's lack of concern about having correct information in the database.

 As a consumer, I see no value to the service that ARIN provides. I pay ARIN's fees only to keep ARIN from giving the AS that I use to someone else and causing an administrative issue to become an operational issue.

February 17, 2014 at 11:53 AM

I advise several large legacy block holders.  Some of them signed the LRSA, but many have not.  For them, the burdens imposed by the LRSA outweigh the benefits.   Some on the PPML have suggested that off-contract legacy holders don’t sign up with ARIN because they want to be free-riders.  But the fees (and the avoidance of the fees) are not a factor in their LRSA decision. 

 

Based on my experience working with legacy block holders, I believe adopting a policy substantially similar to RIPE 605 (ARIN prop 203) would go a long way in harmonizing the interests of the ARIN community with the community of legacy holders that do not have formal relationships with ARIN.

         

ARIN’s absolute control over additional allocations of “free” IPv4 numbers in its region has served as the primary policy enforcement mechanism.  This carrot really only works on recipients that need more IPv4 numbers, and then only as long as ARIN has free numbers to give out.  It doesn’t directly influence the behavior of many legacy block holders when they convey their spare numbers.   Legacy holders are a major source of future IPv4 number distributions, and their relevance to the broader ARIN community will become more prominent as ARIN’s IPv4 free pool reaches depletion.  

 

In the secondary market context, ARIN now relies on its ability to withhold registry database updates as the primary means to extend enforcement of its current policies into private transactions between parties conveying beneficial use of IPv4 numbers.  This, however, is a weak enforcement tool. Two parties can convey beneficial use of IPv4 numbers in lawful commercial transactions without updating ARIN’s registry database.  But IPv4 number conveyances not recorded in the registry system produces very undesirable results – the “reality” in the registry database will not reflect operational reality, as David Conrad and others have pointed out in several posts.    

 

Buyers and sellers would prefer to document their conveyances in a reliable and accurate public registry, but not if the contingencies and conditions materially and adversely affect their commercial arrangement.  RIPE 605/ ARIN prop 203 recognizes this reality.  With a little tweaking, adopting it would go a long way in minimizing the disincentives now facing legacy holders (and entities that want to acquire their numbers) when contemplating whether updating the registry database is worth the risk of subjecting their transactions to ARIN’s approval process. 

 

Marc Lindsey
Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP
2001 L Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Office: (202) 857-2564
Mobile: (202) 491-3230
Email: mlind...@lb3law.com
Website: www.lb3law.com

 

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Reply via email to