Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

[David Conrad]

I think you'd be surprised.  Two data points: Stanford University returned a
/8.  BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe.

The last time an effort was undertaken to encourage people to return address
space, it was fairly successful.

Rgds,
-drc

On 10/2/02 12:24 PM, "Trevor Paquette" <Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca> wrote:

> Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount of money that
> no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a company has it.. they
> are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove otherwise..
> 
> Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who are doing well. Try
> to encourage them to return their unused IP space..
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On
>> Behalf Of Mury
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM
>> To: sigma at smx.pair.com
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy
>> Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come
>> up a lot over
>> the last couple years.
>> 
>> It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking
>> about it on some
>> mailling list.  What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP
>> space?  It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone
>> to make some
>> phone calls again.
>> 
>> In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money
>> pot, so maybe
>> ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of
>> that wasted IP
>> space... half joking.
>> 
>> ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that addresses this
>> wasted IP space.  It probably shouldn't be a policy because
>> you don't want
>> unenforable policies, but there should be something.  And then there
>> should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these
>> space holders.
>> 
>> Mury
>> 
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Why not make policy so that the current holders of
>> multiple /8-24s have
>>>> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current
>> criteria)?  That
>>>> would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it?
>>> 
>>> It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it
>> is to impose and
>>> enforce policy retroactively.  When you're talking about
>> allocations that
>>> predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action?
>> ARIN should
>>> focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP
>> space, while
>>> encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy
>> assignments return
>>> them whenever possible.
>>> 
>>> Kevin
>>> 
>> 
>