On 03/05/2019 20:10, John Curran wrote:
On 3 May 2019, at 2:02 AM, Hank Nussbacher <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/05/2019 21:06, John Curran wrote:
It is certainly possible to change the rights provided with address block
issuance to include routing responsibilities, but that’s a rather significant
change compared to ARIN’s present scope of operations.
So issuing an address block via ARIN is issued in a vacuum with no implied
routing responsibilities? I also don't understand why it would be a
significant change to add such responsibility.
"ARIN hereby allocates to you an IP address block and hereby grants you sole
permission to announce that address block to the Internet.”
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.
The problem with such a statement is that it is either: 1) meaningless, or 2)
creates obligations on recipients that are not clearly stated.
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. If the community wants to infringe on this freedom, then we need to be
very clear on that point.
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.”
I could live with that statement. :-)
Now how to proceed and achieve consensus is a totally different story.
On a side note that sentence that you wrote, if written 20 years ago,
would have easily been placed as part of the ARIN policy. It was always
implied yet never spelled out since BGP hijacks were not a weekly
"thing", 20 years ago. Now that hijacks are a weekly, if not a daily
thing, the Internet standard purists see that sentence as the Thanos of
the Internet. Sad.
-Hank
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.
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.
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.
