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

[Jim Fleming]

Keep in mind that IPv4 TOS=0x00,0x0*,0x*0 allocations are very carefully controlled...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/1007/042.html
"...they were delighted when I returned later, bringing with me a platoon of Internet gurus, including Esther Dyson, Mitch Kapor,
Tony Rutkowski, and Vint Cerf. They sealed us into an electronically impenetrable room to discuss the radical possibility that a
good first step in lifting their blackout would be for the CIA to put up a Web site."
=====

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Uchenna Ibekwe" <uibekwe at earthlink.net>
To: "Bill Darte" <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
Cc: "ARIN PPML" <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9


> Irrespective of IPv6, the return of legacy space will foster better management
> of the Ipv4 space, a few points to consider are:
> - Legacy IP space allocated to Latin America, considering the establishment of
> LACNIC.
> - Companies that are longer in operation, but still have Ip space allocated to
> them.
> - Enables us to build a better and current database in the process.
> - Serve as a process to provide forecasts for IPv6 as we would have a better
> grasp of usage.
> 
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:21:48 -0500  Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> 
> > 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   
> > > >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy
> > space 
> > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9  
> > > >To: "'David Conrad'" , 
> > > Trevor Paquette , 
> > > "'Mury'" , sigma at smx.pair.com
> > > >Cc: ARIN PPML 
> > > >
> > > >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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>    
> > > 
> > 
>