[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Jun 28 17:45:16 EDT 2007


In a message written on Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:28:02PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Yes, however, faced with the choice between return some address space
> and pay $100/year and keep your address space and continue to pay
> nothing, which would you choose?
> 
> Which do you think most people would choose?

I feeling is $100/year going forward is not a major decision making
factor for most people, and the ROI if you got the $1250 intial
fees waved for a new allocation (of for instance IPv6 space) is 12
years, which isn't bad.

> >>			3.	Any organization returning address space 
> >>			under
> >>				this policy shall continue under their 
> >>				existing
> >>				RSA or they may choose to sign the current 
> >>				RSA.
> >>				For organizations which currently do not
> >>				have an RSA, they may sign the current RSA, 
> >>				or,
> >>				they may choose to remain without an RSA.
> >
> >I strongly object to giving out any new resource that is not covered
> >by an RSA.  That's a deal breaker for me.
> >
> This isn't giving any new resources out.  It's allowing them to return
> space without penalty.  My intent here isn't to give away
> the store, it's to remove as many barriers to address return as possible
> while still providing some incentives to join into the ARIN process.

Ok, you referenced Amnesty, which is section 4.6, and so that was
on my brain.  In 4.6 you can turn in space and get new space
(potentially a smaller, and/or contiguous block) back.

I am ok with someone not having to sign an RSA if the only action is to
return space.  In that case I think section 3 is grossly over specified:

3. Return of an address block should not change the relationship
   between ARIN and the organization for any blocks not being
   returned.

However, perhaps it would be better if you crafted a replacement for
4.6, which kept the current trade in arrangement, and left us with a
single cohesive 4.6 between what is there now and your proposal.

> In like 99% of these cases, the space retained would be an existing
> prefix or a fraction of an existing prefix.  In those 1% cases where we
> hand out, say a new /20 in trade for a 50 or 60 discreet class C's, I
> think I'd rather have one /20 out there without an RSA and reclaim
> the 50 or 60 class C's than keep the existing 50 or 60 class C's out
> there without an RSA.  If you think this through, I suspect you would,
> too.  This policy does not in any way provide for someone to get
> more space than they already have or expand their current
> space without returning at least as much as they are receiving.

Nope.  Nothing new going out without an RSA.  I'm quite firm on that
point.  I'm fairly positive I'll strongly oppose any policy that tries
to give out anything not under an RSA.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070628/eb114c6c/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list