[ppml] Policy 2002-5 let's keep it simple?

[Bill Darte]

Michael.Dillon  wrote:
> 
> >Hi Everyone,
> >On the same vein, how do we feel about this rewording?  
> Also, I again 
> feel
> >that 12 months is way too long a time, especially if the 
> organization is
> >already not using a part of the space.
> 
> I think that we should set aside this issue until it can be 
> more clearly 
> formulated and discussed. One issue that I see is that this 
> is trying to 
> do two different things and I believe that we need two more focused 
> policies to accomplish that. Firstly, we want to contact all 
> legacy users 
> of IPv4 space and get them to become part of the system, i.e. keep in 
> touch and register their up to date contact information. 

Do you think it is a good idea to have an amnesty policy in place prior to
contacting legacy holders?

> Secondly, we want 
> to organize the pre-ARIN IPv4 space in a more logical manner 
> because we 
> can probably achieve a higher usage rate by doing so.

Do you think benefits of the amnesty policy (as written) will contribute to
this goal?
Is it necessary to have achieve a high degree of re-organization to achieve
any benefit at all?

 And 
> maybe thirdly, 
> we want legacy users to pay for service. 

Would the partial benefits of re-organization or legacy space be valuable
without getting legacy users to pay?

<snip>
> I would suggest that there be a program to contact all 
> holders of legacy 
> IPv4 space and that we should tell them that they MUST register their 
> contact information with their RIR or else relinquish their 
> allocation. 

At this point does ARIN not express it's authority to reclaim legacy
allocations and does this not likely provoke a legal battle?
Must we go there to achieve some useful benefits from the 'stepping stone'
amnesty policy as proposed?

> This is not a hardship for any address space holder. Some 
> organizations 
> may claim that their use of the space is outside of the 
> public Internet 
> and therefore they should be left alone, however I disagree. 
> They should 
> still at minimum register their contact info and the status 
> of the space. 
> Whether or not they should legitimately continue to be given 
> exclusive 
> usage rights to the space is something that we should not be 
> dealing with 
> at all right now. We just need to know who has the usage 
> rights to every 
> single fragment of the IPv4 space.

ASKING legacy holders to register and expressing supporting logic is one
thing....... but saying you MUST register or lose you allocation is much
more.
Once you make the authority challenge, you may as well go all the way and
assert total authority and bill too.  Do it for one, do it for all.  Now you
have a really BIG project with lots of legal fees........... only Dennis is
happy then.

> 
> If, in fact, we are going to reorganize the layout of the legacy 
> allocations such as the swamp, then I believe that we need 
> more discussion 
> and some joint action with the other RIRs. Any policy 
> relating to this 
> should be identically worded with all RIRs. I believe that it 
> is a good 
> idea to swap space only if the result is a less chaotic map 
> of the IPv4 
> space at the level of RIR allocations to members. What I mean is that 
> today we know that in certain ranges, the RIR allocated all 
> blocks at /19 
> or larger. In other ranges the RIRs allocated at /20 or 
> larger. If we can 
> reorganize the swamp so that there are defined ranges in which all 
> allocations are /21 or larger, /22 or larger, /23 or larger 
> and /24 or 
> larger then this would be a good thing. But we won't really 
> know how big 
> to make these ranges until we have an idea of who has legacy 
> usage rights 
> and still wishes to retain those rights. Also, once we decide to 
> reorganize the space through swapping, we should have at 
> least a rough 
> plan for offering new allocations with the same sizes. And perhaps we 
> should even be issuing smaller blocks than /24 in a defined range for 
> small multihomed networks. 
> And then there is payment for service which is an issue that 
> strikes at 
> the heart of what a registry is and what it does. Here, I 
> believe we need 
> a vision that goes beyond matters such as swamp cleaning in 
> the IPv4 space 
> but also encompasses the future when IPv6 is so widely 
> deployed that we 
> have decided to abandon the IPv4 space entirely. People will still be 
> using IPv4 for lots of things but we won't have any need for a global 
> registry for IPv4 anymore.


Seems easier to organize a transition to IPv6 than to attempt to redress all
previous allocation errors and fight all the court challenges and then end
up with a protocol and address space which is insufficient to fuel future
demand.

<snip>

I believe that making a start with an amnesty policy (perhaps wordsmithed)
is a good first step toward many potentially valuable future objectives you
itemize.
Simple to enact, simple to explain, simple to support.... and it achieves
direct and indirect good.


> 
> -- Michael Dillon
>