[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders

At 23:20 28/08/2012 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>On 28/08/2012 17:42, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> > DDN.MIL NIC would tend to disagree with your statement (similar emails were
> > sent back in the "old" days to most NRENs since we were the Internet
> > pioneers):
>
>Hank,
>
>Like all windows into the past, the DDN's email prompts more questions than
>it answers.
>
>The thing that immediately jumps out is that if IUCC was acting as a
>de-facto national internet registry at the time and registered IP addresses
>on behalf of all Israeli users, not just those in the academic community,
>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).


>E.g. if ECI Telecom or Bezeq (who received 147.234.0.0/8 and 147.235.0.0/8
>respectively, both of which came out of ISRAELB-BLOCK) were to state that
>their ERX address blocks belonged absolutely to them and that IUCC had no
>claims whatsoever over them, what would IUCC's position be?

Since all that IP space is no longer under our LIR, we have no claims to 
it.  We gladly allocated that IP space to them 20+ years ago and those 
blocks are now listed under different LIRs that have nothing to do wth IUCC.


>This is of course a matter for IUCC and ECI Telecom / Bezeq to resolve.
>But let's say that IUCC admitted that it had no claim to Bezeq's address
>block, then where would IUCC stand on 147.233.0.0/8 which is registered to
>the Open University? Would IUCC's position be that this is different just
>because they're a member of IUCC.  If so, why?

Yes, our view is different on that block since it remained as a member of 
IUCC since the time it was allocated to them.

>I can't see any clear
>answer here.  Maybe you reached an explicit agreement with OpenU about
>this, but that would be outside the context of your statement about DDN-NIC
>above?
>
>Alternatively, could IUCC feasibly claim that it had a beneficial interest
>in Bezeq's block: 147.235.0.0/8?  I really doubt it.

We don't have any claim to their /16.


>I'm not fishing for answers to these specific questions, btw.  I'm
>interested in the general issue: who is the ultimate assignee of the ERX
>blocks which were handed out via the NRENs and what claims are both they
>and the NRENs making over it?

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.

>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.


>When I was registering address space from the InterNIC in the early 1990s,
>the address space was registered directly, and it was not done via a local
>agent (e.g. HEAnet in the case of Ireland).  There was a clear
>understanding in all cases that the address space was registered to the
>individual assignee regardless of whether the registration was handled
>directly by the assignee or via a service provider (both HEAnet/as1213 and
>IEUnet/as2110 provided this service at the time).  There was also a clear
>understanding that this address space would remain with the assignee,
>where-ever they happened to be connected to.  There was no concept that the
>address space would be anything other than provider independent - in fact
>the idea was anathema.
>
>At least this was the case in Ireland - Israel may have been different, but
>I see no evidence of it in the email that you received from the DDN-NIC,
>regardless of talk of "your allotment".  It looks much more like IUCC was
>acting as the equivalent of a modern day National Internet Registry of the
>form they currently deploy in east asia (which also receives "allocations"
>  from apnic), rather than a pre-RIR-era LIR handling modern style PA
>address space.

That might be true for the allocation I listed above as an example, but 
there were other, even larger allocations, that were assigned specifically 
to IUCC for sub-allocation to its university members.

-Hank


>Nick