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

[John M. Brown]

RFC's once posted can't be changed.  They can be replaced
with new RFC's.

You could create a ID (Internet-Draft) that would contain
new language and then submit that to the correct IETF WG
for consideration.   I believe the IETF is always looking
for new blood to help the processes along.


Don't understand your comment about "Appeal"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Mury
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:44 PM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: 'David Conrad'; Trevor Paquette; sigma at smx.pair.com; ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: 
> [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9
> 
> 
> 
> So could ARIN update that RFC with current allocation 
> information and post that RFC on their web site and mail it 
> to the more obvious parties?
> 
> Why couldn't ARIN have an "appeal" along with their policies? 
>  Or am I missing that somewhere on the web site?
> 
> Mury
> 
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Bill Darte wrote:
> 
> > FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which specifically 
> requests the 
> > return of unused networks...
> > 
> > RFC 1917
> > An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return
> > Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA
> > 
> > Network Working Group
> > Request for Comments: 1917
> > BCP: 4
> > Category: Best Current Practice
> > 
> > P. Nesser II
> > Nesser & Nesser Consulting
> > February 1996
> > 
> > Bill Darte
> > ARIN Advisory Council
> > 
> > 314 935-7575
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM
> > > To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com
> > > Cc: ARIN PPML
> > > Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: 
> [ppml] ARIN 
> > > Policy Proposal 2002-9
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > >>> 
> > > >> 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>