RE: Lightly used IP addresses

[Nathan Eisenberg <nathan () atlasnetworks us>]

>   If someone who was downstream from this provider in a similar situation, I'd
> say there is a stronger propensity for them to not 'do the right thing'.   which by
> the way isn't a law,  so who says its right?    its a set of guide lines a group of
> folks put together.

But the reality is that you asserted your intention to follow those guidelines when you requested the allocation, did 
you not?  

If an upstream accepts announcements from a revoked block, what is to stop them from accepting announcements for an 
unallocated block?  I realize this precariously borders on committing a slippery slope fallacy, but I think it's a 
valid question to ask - a provider is either 'in compliance' with the guidelines, or 'not in compliance' with them.  
Once you're 'not in compliance' a little bit, how can I have a valid trust relationship with you about the rest of it?

> see previous note about SSL being worthless for identity assurance.

Fair enough - serves me right for invoking analogy.

> following a corporation (yes, ARIN is a corporation) as if you were a sheep will
> empower them to do precisely this in the future.

There's no sheepism here.  The proposed situation represents a valid reason for revoking address space under the 
community developed guidelines.  I don't see the problem with following those guidelines, do you?

> How many large carriers on this list would immediately halt announcing a
> downstream-in-good-financial-standing's prefixes just because ARIN say's
> they're delinquent?

That depends.  I vote with my wallet.  How many carriers want my business, and the business of other customers who 
(reasonably) expect compliance with the standing policies?  Do you want to do business with someone who's willing to 
break the rules everyone else is playing by?

Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
Atlas Networks, LLC