[ppml] Revised Policy Proposal Resource Reclamation

[Owen DeLong]

On May 1, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Rich Emmings wrote:

> On Tue, 1 May 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> More likely, say we eventually decide -- and counsel agrees --  
>> that policy
>> applies to folks with legacy assignments.  ARIN would then review  
>> everyone
>> with such and apply the "if you applied for space today, what  
>> would we give
>> you" standard.  If the org had significantly more than that  
>> amount, e.g.
>> certain universities with a /8 who only really need a /14 or so,  
>> they'd get
>> whacked.  Ditto for any org whose space doesn't show up in the global
>> routing table and who doesn't respond to all reasonable attempts  
>> by ARIN to
>> contact them; the presumption would be the space is no longer in  
>> use, not
>> compliant with current policy, and could be reclaimed.
>
> 1) Legacy IP Space assignments were not assigned by ARIN -- do they  
> have
> control over it, especially, if no RSA was signed (see #3)  Likely,  
> in order
> to give all the RIR's a square shake, it'd have to go back to IANA  
> not ARIN.
>
My opinion is that no RIR has any authority to revoke legacy space  
absent
the holder voluntarily signing an RSA.

However, in terms of a fair shake, the RIRs have actually divided up the
legacy space geographically as well as is possible, so, there would  
not be
a need for it to go back to IANA.  It can be returned to the  
appropriate RIR.

> 2) ARIN provides globally unique numbers without regard to routing,  
> given
> justifiable need.  That it shows up in the routing table is not a
> requirement, and they explicitly say the space you are getting is not
> guaranteed routable.  In other words, they are a number registry.
>
Right.  Hence the "AND" term for requiring that both the space is  
unrouted
and that the POC is unreachable.  If both of these conditions are  
met, it
is not unreasonable to presume that the addresses have been abandoned.
> 3) Universities with a /8 (or other size) who have not asked for space
> recently, may be worth approaching for reclaimation; those that  
> have added
> space to their initial allocations, have probably done their  
> justifications
> recently.  Those who ignore ARIN may be legally justifed in doing  
> so -- they
> did not get their space from ARIN, so have not agreed to the RSA.   
> Does ARIN
> have legal control over their space?  If I were them, I'd legally  
> argue no,
> and by the time it gets settled, it'd probably moot.  (not that I  
> don't
> question why some early allocations continue to have huge amounts  
> of space,
> not only /8's. but also multiple /16's and /24's)
>
Agreed.  Further, I'd like to point out that this is not the intent  
of the policy
proposal at hand.  The intent is to give ARIN the tools to audit  
compliance
and reclaim space subject to an RSA which does not meet ARIN standards.

>
>
> FWIW, My last count was 12 assigned /8's that weren't in the global  
> routing
> tables. If we pushed those folks, they'd just announce some small  
> prefix
> somewhere, and it'd be announced.  That the rest of their network  
> is FW'd
> off from you is their business.  Just because they don't announce  
> it today,
> doesn't mean they aren't entitled to the space.  Plus, they  
> probably never
> signed an ARIN RSA, a few are international, government or multi- 
> national,
> so ARIN's legal ability to smack down may be a long and rocky road.

Noone is proposing revocation based solely on non-routed nature.
However, unrouted and with unreachable POC tends to lead to a reasonable
presumption of abandonment.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070501/04685c38/attachment.p7s>