Re: Lightly used IP addresses

[John Curran <jcurran () arin net>]

On Aug 15, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> as a reader of this thread with any memory can clearly see, when i asked
> about a change to the lrsa (with which you clearly disagree), i was told
> to submit a suggestion and to go through the policy process.
>
> when you want a change to the same agreement, whammy, it can magically
> be done with a quick internal process.

Randy - 

I understand your confusion.  If you find a typo, or grammatical error,
or phrase which is contradictory, I can fix it the next version.  If you 
have a suggestion for LRSA content change, please use the suggestion 
process or take it up at a meeting as you prefer.

For the particular change that you want, I was noting that NRPM 4.1
(not 6.4.1 as I wrote) specifically cites RFC 2050:

> 4.1.7. RFC 2050
>
> ARIN takes guidance from allocation and assignment policies and procedures set forth in RFC 2050. These guidelines 
> were developed to meet the needs of the larger Internet community in conserving scarce IPv4 address space and 
> allowing continued use of existing Internet routing technologies.

and as a result, you should look to the IETF to update the RFC2050
guidance or the Policy Development process to remove the reference.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

----


Begin forwarded message:

> From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
> Date: August 15, 2010 6:49:12 AM EDT
> To: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
>
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > > gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
> > > Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
> >
> > oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
> > lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa.  just remove it. 
>
> Easy to do, you can either: 
>
> 1) Change the appropriate policy language (NRPM 6.4.1) via the ARIN policy 
>   development process, in which case the LRSA will be updated as noted, or 
>
> 2) If you feel that you'd prefer a different forum, you can address this on a  
>   more global basis (since each RIR has similar language regarding addresses) 
>   by going through the IETF and revising the RFCs, which will likely result 
>   in the RIRs all reviewing their documents accordingly.
>
> Either route requires that the community comes to a consensus on the change 
> and can give you the results you seek.  Or you can enjoy the status quo.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> p.s. If you want to continue to discuss, can we shortly move this to PPML 
>     or ARIN-Discuss for the sake of those not interested in these matters
>     who have different expectations from their NANOG list subscription?