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

On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 01:45 +0000, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> David Croft wrote:
> Legacy addresses though where simply 'allocated'. Nothing else.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> They effectively don't have any agreement, they just got them.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> There is no concept of LIR for those assignments. RIRs and thus also
> LIRs didn't even exist at that time.

Some consider the internet a "virtual society". From that angle it can
also be considered fair that the society's laws and regulations to
evolve over time. From this perspective legacy-holders have had the
opportunity to take part in the process and shouldn't be allowed to
ignore it with no consequences. Today it seems much like everyone makes
their own rules, or that there are no rules. Either way that is anarchy.
What we really need to ask ourselves in the long term is if that is
really what we want (considering the perpetual exceptions for
legacy-holders that have been suggested in v6 space). 


//per