[ppml] LACNIC

[Jim Fleming]

From: "Uchenna Ibekwe" <uibekwe at earthlink.net>
> - Legacy IP space allocated to Latin America, considering the establishment of
> LACNIC.
=====

LACNIC is "under" ARIN

Do you see any LACNIC allocations here ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

Also, do you think LACNIC (or ARIN) can pay ICANN $168 million per year per /8 ?

http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html
"On 2 September 2002, customers in the emerging LACNIC region will begin to receive invoices from LACNIC. Monies will be payable in
US dollars. All monies collected by LACNIC will be transferred to ARIN. ARIN in turn will return a portion of those monies to LACNIC
to help sustain LACNIC operations. Upon final recognition, the transfer of monies will cease. The target date for the cessation of
money transfer is 18 November 2002."


----- 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>