North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Tue Feb 19 16:48:28 2008

On 19 feb 2008, at 21:54, Owen DeLong wrote:

At a certain point, the courts will apply the reasonable and prudent test to the question and likely determine
that someone who received an assignment from SRI-NIC or NSI-NIC had a reasonable expectation to be
able to use that address space in perpetuity and that whatever registry had reasonable duty not to duplicate
said assignment.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but that's all a load of crap.

People get their street addresses changed when there is a need. Phone numbers are changed when this is required to keep the numbering plan working. Why would people who by the policies that have been in effect for a decade don't qualify be able to keep using unreasonably large amounts of address space if this blocks others from connecting to the network?

ARIN/IANA/whatever should have had the stones to first put a large amount of pressure on the legacy class A holders and then take them to court. Declaring defeat before any action is taken is not a reasonable course of action.

Now it's too late, of course: the lawsuits would take years, renumbering too.

By the way, I sat down on the couch and turned on the NANOG channel to watch the IPv6 hour, but the video was fairly flakey. What was it that Randy found so cool?