Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:24 , John Curran <jcurran () arin net> wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> > Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name field on the old email template couldn't 
> > be blank. A class-A was allocated to a _purpose_.
>
> Bill - 
>
> The block in question is a /8 research assignment made with a particular network name and a particular responsible 
> technical contact, just as so many other research networks during that period; indeed, if that is what you meant by 
> “purpose”, then you are correct.   Like so many of those early research networks, the evolution of the block over 
> time was under control of the contact listed in the registry, and resulted in some being returned, some ending up 
> with commercial firms, some with not-for-profit entities, etc.   
>
> In the case of AMRPNET, in 2011 ARIN did approve update of the registration to a public benefit not-for-profit at the 
> request of the registered contact.   
>
> > You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to be reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and 
> > then treated the organization as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that.
>
> Again, ARIN was specifically requested to do exactly that by the authoritative contact, and it was correct to proceed 
> given that the IP block was a general purpose IP address block absent any other policy guidance. 
>
> > Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach organizations to the purpose-based allocations
>
> You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based” allocation, but failed to point to any actual 
> policy guidance that distinguishes it in that manner.    Note that we do have many such documents that identify a 
> variety of purpose-based allocations – for example, RFC 5737 ("IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation”),  RFC 
> 6598 for 'Shared Address Space' for CGN, etc.  If you do have a IETF or IANA policy document applicable to AMPRNET 
> that somehow has been overlooked, please provide it to ARIN as part of an Internet number resource fraud report, and 
> we will promptly review and investigate. 

John,

Here’s a decent history of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet

Note that Hank obtained the allocation from Jon in the 1970s and Jon apparently officially recorded it in September 
1981, very early in the days of the IANA. This is one of the oldest IP address allocations.

The page has already been updated by someone to reflect the transfer in question. I’ve been advised that the part about 
CAIDA network telescope is somewhat in error.

It’s true that CAIDA receives the background traffic that doesn’t have more specifics, but that this is done as part of 
advertising the full block for purposes of AMPRNET tunnels to those who have legitimate allocations and don’t have 
their own BGP arrangements for advertising their blocks.

Here is a discussion by amateurs of failures in the ability to properly use this block for its intended purpose dating 
back to 2012:
https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/ohi7j/did_you_know_that_there_is_a_classa_16777216/

An early RFC (820) shows it as Amateur Radio Experiment Network and shows HM (Hank Magnuski, KA6M) under the column 
Reference.
        (not Administrative or Technical contact, but “Reference”). In the people section, Hank is the only one who 
doesn’t have an
        organization code between his name and email, showing only “---“ instead.

This is mirrored in RFC900. Also in RFC1020, RFC1062, RFC1117, RFC1166, except that HM has been replaced by PK28 (Phil 
Karn, KA9Q) in the
“Reference” column.

Another very good history is here:
http://www.jdunman.com/ww/AmateurRadio/Networking/amprnet.htm

There is a difference between designation for a purpose and “special use”. You’ll note that each of the “special use” 
address ranges is for some particular use that is special to the internet, not for some particular research, 
educational, or other purpose outside of IANA.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that from the perspective of amateur radio operators, 44.0.0.0/8 belongs to Amateur Radio 
in general and Hank and his successors are/were merely stewards without the authority to act outside of the maintenance 
of the registration in good standing with the IANA or its successor (ARIN in this case).

Unfortunately, while I have met Phil (who is complicit in this process), I do not know Hank and am probably unknown to 
him. I have no idea how to reach him in order to try and get a statement of his intent in obtaining the block and/or 
his feelings about this transaction. Of course, it would be even harder to get additional information from Jon at this 
time for obvious reasons.

Owen