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

[Mury]

I basically meant take the already well written RFC, update the relevant
allocation percentages which have certainly changed, and mold it into a
document that ARIN would "publish."  It probably should not be a policy,
so I was just using the label "appeal."

I may be way off base, but I know I do speak for quite a few people of
similiar opinions that ARIN should make some low cost efforts to encourage
the return of unused IP space.  At least it would get the ball rolling in
the right direction.

Mury

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, John M. Brown wrote:

> 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
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>