At 11:14 29/08/2012 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Hank,
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,
On 29/08/2012 01:07, Hank Nussbacher wrote: 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