I would actually prefer to find a way to resolve the problem of entities not caring about their whois being accurate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H resources being properly registered to them. It's rather pointless to have any rules without them actually mattering.
RPKI had hope, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. -Blake On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, David, an organization can be a bad actor and tie up excess resources > without transferring them in violation of the spirit and intent of the > policy. > > Or, you could recognize that the intent of the policy and the reason for > that policy is to make those addresses available to other entities with a > more immediate need and behave in the spirit of the community. > > We can’t make the letter of the law force all organizations to be good > actors. It’s just not practical. The best we can do is provide policy that > expresses the general intent of the community and hope that the majority of > people and organizations are good actors. > > So while your ability to circumvent the intent of the policy within the > “letter of the law” is not in the interest of the community, compliance with > the spirit and intent of the policy is, in fact good for the operator > community. Of course, it is inevitably up to each organization whether to > act as a good citizen of the community or not. This is true even in cases > where the policy is iron clad and there are certainly no shortage of > examples of bad actors throughout history. > > Owen > > On Jun 3, 2014, at 12:31 PM, David Huberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > We had a discussion today at NANOG in the ARIN PPC about needs-basis in 8.3 > transfers. > > I’d like to state the following, and then let’s see where the discussion > takes us: > > My team runs an AS. And yep, we’re a pretty big company. We rely on IPv4 > today for most of our numbering, and will continue to do so for the next > couple of years.[1] In the coming year, when we can’t get space from ARIN > or other RIRs, we have to turn to the market for our IP address needs. We > may choose to buy more than a 2 year supply, because it may make business > sense for us to do so. ARIN policy, however, only allows us to take the IP > addresses we buy and transfer the portion which represents a 2 year need. > The rest will remain in the name of whoever sold the IP addresses to us. > > Why is this result good for the operator community? Wouldn’t it be better > if ARIN rules allowed us to transfer into our name all the IP addresses > which we now own? > > Regards, > /david > > [1] We’re working on increasing IPv6 presence in our network and our > products, but large corporations move slowly ;) > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
