[ppml] Revised Policy Proposal Resource Reclamation

Thus spake "Rich Emmings" <rich at nic.umass.edu>
> On Tue, 1 May 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> More likely, say we eventually decide -- and counsel agrees --
>> that policy applies to folks with legacy assignments.  ARIN
>> would then review everyone with such and apply the "if you
>> applied for space today, what would we give you" standard.  If
>> the org had significantly more than that amount, e.g. certain
>> universities with a /8 who only really need a /14 or so, they'd
>> get whacked.  Ditto for any org whose space doesn't show up
>> in the global routing table and who doesn't respond to all
>> reasonable attempts by ARIN to contact them; the
>> presumption would be the space is no longer in use, not
>> compliant with current policy, and could be reclaimed.
>
> 1) Legacy IP Space assignments were not assigned by ARIN
> -- do they have control over it, especially, if no RSA was signed
> (see #3)  Likely, in order to give all the RIR's a square shake,
> it'd have to go back to IANA not ARIN.

All the legacy space was transferred to an appropriate RIR for maintenance a 
while back.  If that space was reclaimed, it's logical to assume that it'd 
stay with the RIR that it was transferred to by IANA.  Unless, of course, 
IANA says something to the contrary.

> 2) ARIN provides globally unique numbers without regard to
> routing, given justifiable need.  That it shows up in the routing
> table is not a requirement, and they explicitly say the space you
> are getting is not guaranteed routable.  In other words, they are
> a number registry.

All true, but if the space _does_ show up in the routing table, that creates 
the presumption that it's in use.  If ARIN could contact the org and they 
justified private use, that's within current policy as well.  Orgs are 
encouraged to use RFC1918 space on private networks, but they can get direct 
assignments for private use if they insist.  That may change as we get 
closer to (or past) exhaustion, though.

> 3) Universities with a /8 (or other size) who have not asked for
> space recently, may be worth approaching for reclaimation;

IIRC, at least one has done so voluntarily.  Others might be convinced if 
ARIN asked nicely.  Still others might be forced to do so if the community 
agrees that's fair and necessary -- and counsel can figure out how to make 
it stick.

> those that have added space to their initial allocations, have
> probably done their justifications recently.

And if so, we'll look elsewhere.

> Those who ignore ARIN may be legally justifed in doing so --
> they did not get their space from ARIN, so have not agreed to
> the RSA.  Does ARIN have legal control over their space?  If I
> were them, I'd legally argue no, and by the time it gets settled,
> it'd probably moot.  (not that I don't question why some early
> allocations continue to have huge amounts of space, not only
> /8's. but also multiple /16's and /24's)

OTOH, since there's no RSA signed and no fees paid, one could argue that 
ARIN has no obligation to keep maintaining that space or to refrain from 
issuing it to someone else.

I can legally refuse to pay to register my car and sign the papers, but if I 
don't, the state can reuse my license plate number; they're only obligated 
to keep my registration unique if I pay them.  I'm sure others can come up 
with equally-flawed analogies to support arguments either way :)

> FWIW, My last count was 12 assigned /8's that weren't in the
> global routing tables. If we pushed those folks, they'd just
> announce some small prefix somewhere, and it'd be announced.
> That the rest of their network is FW'd off from you is their
> business.  Just because they don't announce it today, doesn't
> mean they aren't entitled to the space.  Plus, they probably never
> signed an ARIN RSA, a few are international, government or
> multi-national, so ARIN's legal ability to smack down may be a
> long and rocky road.

I agree that there's lots of problems to be settled with how we treat legacy 
space.  This proposal, however, doesn't attempt to address that; I was 
merely using it as a hypothetical case of how a significant policy change 
could make reclamation useful.

If/when someone floats a proposal on the exact status of legacy space, Mr. 
Ryan will have his work cut out for him.  Until then, conventional thinking 
is that it can't be revoked but does count in a justification review, e.g. 
it could be used as the basis for revoking non-legacy resources if the org 
is not within policy overall.

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov