On Fri, 3 May 2019, John Curran wrote:
(...)
Hank -
Yes, ARIN could add a statement to that effect to the registration
services agreement ? note that the granting of rights to the address
block in the registry is already present, so it?s really the addition of
the grant of "sole permission to announce that address block to the
Internet? that would be added.
Hi,
But the data in the registry exists so that anyone can know who is the
owner of a prefix, right?
The holdership allows the holder to announce to a single external party or
to all the networks in the world (i.e. commonly, "the internet").
This needs to be explicit?
It isn't implicit that the registry data exists because the holder may
want to actually use (at some point) the numbering resource?
The problem with such a statement is that it is either: 1) meaningless,
or 2) creates obligations on recipients that are not clearly stated.
I fail to see "obligations on recipients". The only obligation needed is
NOT announcing other parties' numbering resources.
The reason why is that ISPs have the ability to configure their routers
as they see fit, including deciding what routes they announce and what
routes they accept.
As long as they announce their own routes, or routes they have
authorization to announce...
If the community wants to infringe on this freedom, then we need to be
very clear on that point.
As a numbering resource holder (i.e. the org i work for) i certainly don't
want to grant "the freedom" to originate OUR numbering resources to
anyone! :-))))
The device may enable that, but the community should self-regulate to
minimize these events.
ARIN ?granting permission? for an ISP to announce a particular address
block doesn?t have any meaning (they already can announce anything they
wish) unless it also implies that ARIN doesn?t grant one permission to
announce other not-assigned address blocks _and_ that you agree that
your unauthorized announcement would be some form of breach of the
agreement.
In effect:. ?Address Holder agrees to only route to the Internet its
own address blocks, or those address blocks for which it has obtained
permission of the registrant as listed in the Internet Number Registry
System.?
Yes.
Does the reformulation help clarify why the addition of that
responsibility might be seen by some as rather significant? If you
actually intend it to be a meaningful change, then it should include the
corresponding obligation in clear and uncertain terms.
Yes, i have no doubt it is a significant change. This gap is huge. Not
sure if the proposal can effectively fully close it, but we will certainly
try.
It?s possible that such a change is reasonable if the community wishes,
but absent a clear and unified expression of support, ARIN could not
consider adding such obligations to registry customers.
That's clear. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Carlos
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
