ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] [Fwd: ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> On 2/16/2011 11:01 AM, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/15/2011 10:21 PM, Eric Westbrook wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 22:36, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu
>>>> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     >  If the effort is to entice legacy space holders into joining
>>>>    ARIN, don't
>>>>     >  try to penalize them.  Give them a positive incentive.
>>>>
>>>>    I don't see this proposal as involving any penalties. Indeed, it is
>>>>    the absence of this kind of thinking that consistently leads to
>>>>    proposals to force legacy holders into the ARIN regime. The
>>>>    (implied) incentive in 133 is that legacy holders can go to other
>>>>    service providers - assuming of course, that we retain a consistent
>>>>    and integrated whois that works across multiple service providers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing's broken today with respect to the services in question.  I can
>>>> only envision additional costs, rigmarole, and coordination issues to
>>>> come with a multiple-provider regime.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps what's broken is that legacy holders like me don't pay -- at
>>>> least, that seems to be the source of some significant outrage here.
>>>
>>> Not to me, and it's never really been that much.
>>>
>>> What I really resent most of all are the legacy-assigned blocks that
>>> are NOT in use.
>>>
>>> I don't care if you were assigned a legacy block 15 years ago that your
>>> paying nothing for - and you have 60% or more utilized.  If anything,
>>> you have my support to have at it.
>>>
>>> But I do very much care if you have a legacy block that you got 15
>>> years ago that is at 1% utilization because your too fat, dumb, and lazy
>>> to renumber into a /24 within that block and return the rest to
>>> the RIR.
>>
>>
>> I oppose this policy proposal.
>>
>> More generally - the number of "large enough to matter" blocks which
>> may be truly badly utilized and therefore highly attractive to
>> encourage legacy holders to renumber and vacate isn't that big in the
>> great scheme of things.  It will not save "the end of the world" (IPv6
>> transition imminence) from happening, given that if they haven't
>> already started, a renumbering effort for a large enterprise will take
>> months to low years to fully develop and implement.  I doubt that we
>> could free up IPv4 space at the rate that APNIC needs more.
>>
>> IF this were to be successful, the time to do it was 2-4 years ago.
>
> This kind of thing was discussed 2-4 years ago and the math didn't
> support it then, either.

It's been discussed since at least 1987, when I started using the Internet.

Since exhaustion became a problem on the "planning horizon" it's come
up regularly.

Why push the issue now, when the math not supporting it is even a worse case?


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com