[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6

[Taylor, Stacy]

Hi John And Everyone,
Maybe the policy can only be for aggregate blocks up to /17?  I feel like
the spirit of the policy is to encourage the return of smaller blocks.
After a /17 the organization would have to justify for the /16....
Or perhaps an organization can only CIDR up if they turn in more than half
or 3/4 of the space in the next largest CIDR?  This idea smacks of reverse
justification, but would prohibit Einar's scenario.

Whaddya think?
Stacy
-----Original Message-----
From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:56 AM
To: ARIN PPML
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6


Hi Stacy, do you have specific language that you would recommend be added to
ensure that the situation described below is safeguarded against? This
invitation is extended to all on the mailing list. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, Stacy [mailto:Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:23 PM
To: 'Sweeting, John'; ARIN PPML
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6


I think that 12 months to renumber is overly generous.  Organizations
willing to request aggregatable space should be ready to renumber before
they request it.
Also, how will we enforce the move off the numbers?  My current allocation
is extra large by dint of NETCOM promising to renumber and "forgetting" to
give back space.

And, Einar's point about turning in a /16 plus one /24 and getting a /15 in
return is valid one under the current wording.  There is a huge difference
between turning 3 /24s and getting a /22, and his scenario.  We must
safeguard against that.

We should not move forward with this policy as it stands. 

Stacy

-----Original Message-----
From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:43 AM
To: ARIN PPML
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6


Wouldn't this apply to all returned IP blocks? and not just to ones returned
under this policy? Should this be a reason not to move forward with Policy
2002-6?

-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, Stacy [mailto:Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 7:27 PM
To: 'Joe Baptista'; McBurnett, Jim
Cc: David Conrad; Einar Bohlin; ARIN PPML
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6


This issue also affects the larger CIDR on occasion.  If an abuser was on
one /24, some ISPs will block the CIDR to which it belongs, even if the ISP
has taken care of the spam.  Geoff of Exodus and I spoke of this at length
at the conference.

Presumably, if the block has been returned, the former user is out of
business or on another block and cannot be contacted.  How does it help us
to know who that was?  
Are we forced to use this space in tiny blocks to interrupt the routing?  I
think we can ill afford to blacklist blocks.

Stacy

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at dot-god.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:54 PM
To: McBurnett, Jim
Cc: David Conrad; Einar Bohlin; ARIN PPML
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6



On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, McBurnett, Jim wrote:

> Exactly!
> I got a Class C from my provider and I get at least 500-1000 hits a day to
two of my IP's for DNS services, Which are there anymore and other less
frequent hits to web services ports.

sometimes legacy traffic is automated (no human in charge).  the equipment
or software thinks there's something there and keeps trying.

We have the same issues on some of our IP - old customers who still get
queried.

regards
joe baptista