[address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Am 04.08.2016 um 23:50 schrieb Netmaster (KPN Eurorings B.V. Germany):
> Further below some comments on Oliver's statement, which (*) probably
> do not contribute much to this discussion, but I felt some words are
> needed. (*) which = the comments, if the majority of statements do, I
> leave up to you to decide.

They contribute a lot, because your reaction including the "co not contribute"
statement is a nice demonstration of the problems arising regarding from
the nearly non-existing relation between "unspecified" and PI holders.

There *are* different interests. Period.

> But Oliver brought up indeed one interesting aspect (beside the 
> operational question on how to secure RDNS): What about legal 
> aspects (for both "sides")?
That *is* a point.

With IPv4 we are no longer talking about administrative issues only,
like it was in the times when I administered a full LIR.

The only way to obtain IPv4 space except for the initial /22 is to
use money and buy it on the free market. This is why RIPE changed
their policies. And when money is involved, standard commercial
law applies.

> Have there at all ever been a case where a LIR holding A-PI/-U space
> withdraw an end user's PI on purpose and against the will/without the
> agreement of the end user and the end user went to court as RIPE NCC
> couldn't have this sorted out? 
I believe you that *you* won't withdraw or grab such resource.

However, the company you work for belongs to the free share
market, a lot of shares currently belong thru a holding to a single
person who already decided to sell Eplus to Telefonice, which then
decided to "integrate" (means: take customers and some base
stations, liquidate/close the remaining stuff) it. Besides the
liquidation act of KPNQwest.

There is no gurantee at all that not tomorrow someone decides
to sell your divsion to an x far east hedge fonds, which then decides
to close the german NOC including your position, monetarize
everything regardless of the rights of PI holders etc.

We as as small company survived big XLINK, big KPNqwest,
big KPN as a state owned company (now: 0% Netherlands),
we survived several big equipment vendors (last: Alcatel,
sad enough) etc.

We want true *independence* on our resources.

And this is why the issue should be solved formally by
registering PI as PI, which it is, and not as "dependend from
the good will of x until bought by hedge fonds y".

This means: PI should be *independent* in the database,
from what I read from your statement, you do not like the
current RDNS solution, too, thus there should be some independent
(RIPE based) solution.

We can talk about not splitting the routing table, your company
will probably see our announcement and thus forwarding in
case of (typically not used) more specific filters should work.

> About the "does not block maintainers". This is an agreement / out-
> come of an old discussion between RIPE NCC and us as LIR years ago.
> It has been re-verified recently and RIPE NCC confirmed: "yes, don't
> give out maintainers". So whom are you blaming for what?
PI space should show up in the database as:
mnt-by:          RIPE-NCC-END-MNT
mnt-by:          resource-holder-MNT
and there is no reason to lock out the resource holder as it is practiced.
Regardless who says this, there are rules.

Kind Regards
Oliver

-- 
Bartels System GmbH + 80935 München, Germany + Ust. Id. DE129296210
oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-(0)89-856305-0
Handelsregister AG München HRB85259 + Geschäftsführer Oliver Bartels