On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:40:44PM +0000, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > >> For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform > >> in the presence of such activity ("leasing" IP addresses by ISP not > >> providing > >> connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to > >> simply > >> be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent > >> transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is > >> set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful. > >> ... > > > > the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW... > > Good to know; it makes its omission from RFC2050 even more significant and > highlights the need for clear policy in this area. Ultimately, the question > is simply how the operator community wishes to have this treated, and there > should be alignment between that consensus and the number resource policy. > > /John
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators don't participate much in the standards setting process so its no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) "blind-spots" when it comes to operational reality. and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator. --bill