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

[Bill Darte]

Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 address reclamation falls out
like this....

Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable protocol for widespread Internet
application?  If yes, then...

Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous blocks of unallocated IPv4
space sufficient to last until there is widespread adoption of IPv6?  If
yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at all.

If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is NO, then.... begin an
aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, immediately (soon).  Making a
case for why it is in the best interests of the 'public' for such return
provides the basis for litigation (involuntary reclamation) in the future if
need be.

Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for widespread Internet
application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement
ought to be underway.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC





> 
> 
> 
> Speaking only for myself...
> 
> I agree with David Conrad on this.  People have 
> voluntarily returned large blocks in the past, 
> notably including Stanford University and my 
> former employer, BBN/GTE.
> 
> ARIN's ability to recover legacy address space 
> from unwilling holders is unclear, and the attempt 
> might well be both painful and expensive.
> 
> ARIN's ability to recover space _voluntarily_, 
> however, is largely untested.  It may be that 
> folks have not returned IPv4 space because they 
> have not persuasively been asked.
> 
> In any case, it seems to me that the cost of 
> making a preliminary experiment is not great.  
> Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and nearly a 
> half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up in 
> blocks 003/8 to 057/8.  These seem to me to 
> represent low hanging fruit - if memory serves, 
> the CAIDA data presented a few meetings ago 
> showed that a significant fraction of that space 
> is "dark", which seems to suggest (but not prove) 
> that much of it might be underutilized.  And only 
> about fifty organizations hold that low hanging 
> fruit.
> 
> My understanding is that, at the time of the ALE 
> work, it was felt that reclamation was not 
> warranted.  The exponential growth of address 
> consumption would quickly overcome any possible 
> reclamation.
> 
> That does not seem to me to be the case today.  
> The last data I know of showed the annual growth 
> of IPv4 address consumption to be in the range 
> between 3% and 7% per year, and declining over 
> time.  Relative to that rate of growth, address 
> reclamation could perhaps extend the life of the 
> IPv4 space by some years.  I think that that would 
> be a good thing, although some might legitimately 
> argue otherwise...
> 
> In any case, it seems to me that a targeted and 
> prioritized pilot program for voluntary 
> reclamation of IPv4 addresses would be worth 
> attempting, would not need to be very expensive, 
> and if done with sensitivity need not generate ill 
> will between ARIN and the holders of these address 
> blocks.
> 
> 
> 
> =====
> 
> Does this make sense?
> 
> Do people see either positive or negative 
> incentives that ARIN could use to encourage the 
> return of large, low utilization IPv4 address 
> blocks?
> 
> Best regards,
> - Scott
> 
> 
> 
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 
> >From: Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu>  
> >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space 
> WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9  
> >To: "'David Conrad'" <david.conrad at nominum.com>, 
> Trevor Paquette <Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca>, 
> "'Mury'" <mury at goldengate.net>, sigma at smx.pair.com
> >Cc: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> >
> >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
> >>
> >>
> >>    <... snip ... >
>