[ppml] My take on legacy resource proposal

mack mack at exchange.alphared.com
Wed Jul 11 13:58:19 EDT 2007

Things people agree on:

1) ARIN should do outreach.
2) Do outreach before doing anything else.
3) Outdated whois records that are invalid should be marked as such - last modified date gives some indication.
4) If the reverse DNS isn't valid mark or remove it - txt records at the delegation point are perfect for this.
5) If space is abandoned it should be reclaimed.
6) Whois is more use to people trying to contact address holders than the address holders.

Things people don't agree on:

1) Legacy holders getting a free ride.

My Take: They have had a free ride long enough but we can't force them to pay anything for legacy resources.

2) Legacy holders keeping unjustified resources.

My Take: The DFZ needs resources but the /24 holders should get to keep the resources if they are using them.
The /16 and /8 holders probably need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Caveat: A network between computers with an air gap firewall from the rest of the world doesn't constitute use in my opinion while connecting 3 or more businesses but not routing the IPs publicly does.  Although if they aren't public reclamation is unlike to effect the businesses one way or the other in the long run.

3) What services Legacy holders are entitled to.

My Take: No one promised Legacy holders reverse DNS, as previously stated it didn't exist when a lot of these allocation/assignments were made.  It CAN be used as a stick after everything else has been tried.  That doesn't
mean it should be or that it will be effective.

Caveat: Someone may have some document contradicting the promise of reverse DNS but I doubt it was codified anywhere before 2050.  2050 doesn't require support for reverse DNS on legacy blocks only on direct allocations from the RIRs.

4) If 2050 applies to legacy space.

My Take: Either it does or ARIN can reissue the space.
That is, either ARIN is required to maintain legacy space per 2050 or it can reissue it.

Caveat: 2050 seems to indicate only IANA can revoke legacy space.  If I was a legacy holder I would hope a court
ruled that 2050 applies and only IANA can revoke legacy space.  This will wind up in court sooner or later.  The NETBLOCKS case still is not settled.  ARIN should really have a page dedicated to current legal actions and filings etc.  If the DoC steps in there is no telling what could happen.

5) If there should be some codified penalty for not signing an RSA.

My Take: Legacy holders need to be brought into an RSA of some kind.  I don't know that we can get them to sign one that does anything other than codify their current status.  Other RIRs have forced legacy holders to sign the current RSA.  The number of legacy blocks and legal environments are much different in those regions.

6) What constitutes abandoned space.

My Take: Space is abandon if it is not in the DFZ and records are out of date.  Obviously every effort to update records should be made before reclamation.

7) What constitutes use.

My Take: A block is in use if it is being routed between multiple entities that are not in the same building.
>From a practical perspective businesses are using non-1918 space internally.  Revoking IPv4 space that is not in the DFZ and assigning it for use in the DFZ will not be popular but is unlikely to break things for a lot of people.
I am not advocating this. It is likely to gain traction after IPv4 runs out.

8) How long IPv4 records should be maintained.

My Take: It will be at least 5-10 years before a majority of people are single homed on IPv6.

LR Mack McBride
Network Administrator
Alpha Red, Inc.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list