Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

["David Croft" david@localhost]

On 31/10/2007, David Conrad <david.conrad@localhost wrote:
> The fact that _you_ can't see a routing announcement for a particular prefix
> does NOT mean the prefix isn't announced somewhere.  There are these things
> called "private networks" and they do interconnect outside of the context of
> the "public" Internet.

I'm sorry, I might be missing some enormous point here, but since when
were these companies sold IP addresses or given indefinite title to
them? If they received them legitimately and they are in active use
then they have a responsiblity to keep the contact information up to
date, as per their original agreement (presumably... barring some huge
historical cock-up).

I say, for every prefix not in the routing table, that is not
registered under a paid-up LIR or equivalent, send them repeated
automated communications and if they fail to respond, *they* have
neglected *their* responsibilities and have lost their right to a loan
of a finite pubic resource.

If they do not keep up with their responsibilities to keep their
records up to date, then why should they be treated any different from
the gazillion former class Bs that no longer exist? And why should we
be concerned about keeping their networks running when they have no
concern about the operation of our internet?

If we can't distinguish betwen the legitimate class B holders and the
Erie Forge and Steels, then why should it be our burden to do so?  Why
must we pander to the 5% of those guys who even still exist when they
refuse to cooperate?

David