From: Vab Goel[SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 1997 10:18 PM
What kinds of guarantees are there that if someone buys it, that they
will actually be able to get and keep this Class B?
If buyer & seller make a deal, with the current model buyer will be able
to use it without any problem.
When what is actually happening differs wildly from documented policies, it
is a pretty good sign that something needs to change. RFCs should either be
followed or changed. Otherwise a crack is opened which may allow splinter
groups to define their own policies in other areas (AlterNIC, etc.)
Under RFC2008, addresses delegated prior to October 1996 have been presumed
to be, in many cases, "owned". RFC2008 both documented prior practice and
introduced a new practice.
RFC2008 is, IMHO, in many ways a watershed document as it applies to IP
numbers and their assignment.
Please read the RFC.
Now if you got an address block with the STIPULATION that its not owned,
then that's different. But absent a declaration for delegations which took
place before October of last year, the *presumption* has been, in many
cases, that delegations in fact do transfer ownership, and that has in
fact been practiced throughout the Internet community. This is particularly
true for assignments which would otherwise be portable (ie: /19s and larger)
if made today.
It CERTAINLY applies to a /16 in the Class "B" historical space; that IS
globally valid under today's practice.
You can change things going forward. You *can't* redefine history. It
doesn't work that way.
BTW, I'm one of the "good guys" in this debate folks -- before you start
taking cheap shots. I returned an /11 (yep, 32 Class "B"s) when VideOcart
Inc. folded, and didn't have to -- my name was listed as the coordinator.
I knew that I would probably NEVER be able to justify the efficient
utilization of that much space, and I had no interest in trying to sell
or otherwise "deal" in it.