> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:24 , John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
>>
>> Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name
>> field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated
>> to a _purpose_.
>
> Bill -
>
> The block in question is a /8 research assignment made with a particular
> network name and a particular responsible technical contact, just as so many
> other research networks during that period; indeed, if that is what you meant
> by “purpose”, then you are correct. Like so many of those early research
> networks, the evolution of the block over time was under control of the
> contact listed in the registry, and resulted in some being returned, some
> ending up with commercial firms, some with not-for-profit entities, etc.
>
> In the case of AMRPNET, in 2011 ARIN did approve update of the registration
> to a public benefit not-for-profit at the request of the registered contact.
>
>
>> You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to be
>> reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and then treated the organization
>> as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that.
>
> Again, ARIN was specifically requested to do exactly that by the
> authoritative contact, and it was correct to proceed given that the IP block
> was a general purpose IP address block absent any other policy guidance.
>
>> Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach
>> organizations to the purpose-based allocations
>
> You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based”
> allocation, but failed to point to any actual policy guidance that
> distinguishes it in that manner. Note that we do have many such documents
> that identify a variety of purpose-based allocations – for example, RFC 5737
> ("IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation”), RFC 6598 for 'Shared
> Address Space' for CGN, etc. If you do have a IETF or IANA policy document
> applicable to AMPRNET that somehow has been overlooked, please provide it to
> ARIN as part of an Internet number resource fraud report, and we will
> promptly review and investigate.
John,
Here’s a decent history of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet
Note that Hank obtained the allocation from Jon in the 1970s and Jon apparently
officially recorded it in September 1981, very early in the days of the IANA.
This is one of the oldest IP address allocations.
The page has already been updated by someone to reflect the transfer in
question. I’ve been advised that the part about CAIDA network telescope is
somewhat in error.
It’s true that CAIDA receives the background traffic that doesn’t have more
specifics, but that this is done as part of advertising the full block for
purposes of AMPRNET tunnels to those who have legitimate allocations and don’t
have their own BGP arrangements for advertising their blocks.
Here is a discussion by amateurs of failures in the ability to properly use
this block for its intended purpose dating back to 2012:
https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/ohi7j/did_you_know_that_there_is_a_classa_16777216/
An early RFC (820) shows it as Amateur Radio Experiment Network and shows HM
(Hank Magnuski, KA6M) under the column Reference.
(not Administrative or Technical contact, but “Reference”). In the
people section, Hank is the only one who doesn’t have an
organization code between his name and email, showing only “---“
instead.
This is mirrored in RFC900. Also in RFC1020, RFC1062, RFC1117, RFC1166, except
that HM has been replaced by PK28 (Phil Karn, KA9Q) in the
“Reference” column.
Another very good history is here:
http://www.jdunman.com/ww/AmateurRadio/Networking/amprnet.htm
There is a difference between designation for a purpose and “special use”.
You’ll note that each of the “special use” address ranges is for some
particular use that is special to the internet, not for some particular
research, educational, or other purpose outside of IANA.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that from the perspective of amateur radio
operators, 44.0.0.0/8 belongs to Amateur Radio in general and Hank and his
successors are/were merely stewards without the authority to act outside of the
maintenance of the registration in good standing with the IANA or its successor
(ARIN in this case).
Unfortunately, while I have met Phil (who is complicit in this process), I do
not know Hank and am probably unknown to him. I have no idea how to reach him
in order to try and get a statement of his intent in obtaining the block and/or
his feelings about this transaction. Of course, it would be even harder to get
additional information from Jon at this time for obvious reasons.
Owen
