[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hank Nussbacher
hank at efes.iucc.ac.il
Wed Aug 29 18:09:06 CEST 2012
At 11:14 29/08/2012 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >Hank, > >On 29/08/2012 01:07, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > At 23:20 28/08/2012 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> then does IUCC maintain some sort of beneficial claim of registration over > >> subnets of the blocks you list - the sort of claim that would entitle you > >> to say that because this was IUCC space rather than IUCC member space, > that > >> it really ought to be covered under IUCC's LIR membership for any future > >> potential argument about a RIPE ERX policy? > > > > Only IP space that remains maintained under our LIR/NREN (il.iucc). > >It is not maintained under il.iucc, because il.iucc is a legal construct >which exists between the RIPE NCC and IUCC. The only address space managed >by il.iucc is 2001:0bf8::/32. Any other address space handled by IUCC have >is either ERX or outside the scope of the RIPE NCC. > >[...] > > My answer would be "Whatever is decided upon by the RIPE membership and not > > unilaterally by RIPE NCC management". But your initial comment of "On the > > one hand, ERX holders obtained address space without a governing contract > > and have been enjoying the benefits of this for many years. On the other > > hand, someone is footing the bill for the maintenance and upkeep of this > > registration data - namely the RIPE NCC membership." is clearly wrong in > > many cases since il.iucc has been "footing the bill" for all ERX space > > listed under its LIR. > >Not really, no. The entry in alloclist.txt for il.iucc is: > > > il.iucc > > IUCC - Israel InterUniversity Computation Center > > > > 20030508 2001:0bf8::/32 > > > >There's no mention of any ipv4 address space, and il.iucc is categorised as >"extra small". I cannot see how this means that il.iucc is footing the >bill for maintenance of the registry entries any more than every other RIPE >NCC member is. > > >> And if there is a precedent for tacitly > >> agreeing that e.g. commercial / governmental ERX assignees are not subject > >> to any NRENs' beneficial claims over the address space for whatever > reason, > >> then on what basis are you claiming that the NRENs have any beneficial > >> claim over their members' address space? > > > > Because in our case, the members (read universities), are the "owners" of > > the NREN. Legally speaking. > >I understand the distinction - I've been working with member-owned >organisations for a long time. However legally speaking, the assets of a >member-owned organisation are owned by that organisation, not by the >members. The organisation as a whole belongs to the members. > >Do I have a right to take Axel Pawlik's laptop? He works for the RIPE NCC, >and ie.netability is a member of the RIPE NCC, and I own ie.netability. >Based on your assertion, I might have some sort of claim to taking it, but >the legal reality is that I have no claim whatsoever. > >Let me put it another way: what would happen if a member were to leave your >NREN? Does IUCC stake its claim on the addresses at that point or not? >And if not, then on what basis do you stake any claim on the IP address >space now? And as a secondary issue (to ownership, but not to the point >you were originally making), if you are not staking a claim on beneficial >interest in the address space now, then why are you claiming that they >should just be bundled in as something similar to ALLOCATED PA address >space from the point of view of your LIR membership in any future agreement >with the RIPE NCC - except that you're also claiming in the policy document >that it shouldn't be counted towards a LIR allocation, but should be >charged as strictly less than a PI assignment per block. > >Hank, I'm not trying to be confrontational here. Nick, As much as it would appear fun and amusing to make il.iucc into a punching bag for RIPE NCC legacy policy, in addition to ideas stated here to take away our legacy IP allocations and give us /22s and force us to use NAT and reengineer our 10,000 node university networks, I think I will stop posting here and await to see what general policy is accepted by RIPE NCC for legacy IP space. -Hank >There's an important >issue which I'm trying to get to the bottom of, namely the issue of where >the rights and responsibilities lie between the address assignees and their >historical registrars. So far I've seen nothing to suggest that the >registrars have any sort of reasonable claim to the address space other; >nor have I seen any indication that the assignees have given informed >consent to these claims. > >These are important issues because they are pretty much guaranteed to >become problems in situations of changes of circumstance (potentially such >as this one). > >Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]