> who knows? probably? not really my personal concern I guess.
If they're using taxpayer supported networks to provide transit
to a private, for profit entity, we should all care.
presumably 44/8 is shorter than the prefix AMZN is going to announce,
right? (the /10) so... either UC wll eat backscatter when/if AMZN
dorks u ptheir announcement/routing-config OR this isn't an issue.
Also, who's this 'we'.. I don't live in california... I presume UC is
getting funding from california, not virginia. (mostly)
It seems though that 44/8 was being used in some research project at
UC so... maybe this is just that still at play.
less nefarious and more 'meh, why change if we don't have to?'
> I'm not sure how you're quite going in this direction...
In order to sell something, you must own it...if you pop up,
claim responsibility for it, sit on it a while, and then sell it..
did you truly own it?
didn't the ardc thing come into existence ~10 yrs back? though what
looks like legit paths...
If you represent a community, in theory, and sell something
without prior discussion, are there ethical concerns around that?
it sounded like there were discussions though (based on what Mr
Fields said earlier
Perhaps those weren't as upfront as some folk want? or perhaps they
were constrained by the legal process surrounding the sale event (and
negotiations leading up to that)
There are some potential legal title questions around this,
and if ARIN is facilitating transactions with questionable history,
that is something the Internet community might be concerned about.
Certainly, facilitating questionable transfers makes the idea
of an RIR sponsored registry that controls routing less palatable to
And this is why I'd love some additional color from the
participants. Perhaps this is all explicable -- but that blog entry
did not assuage my concerns.
perhaps they will pipe up now