[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Whois Authentication Alternatives
bicknell at ufp.org
Tue Aug 26 09:37:38 EDT 2008
In a message written on Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:53:50AM -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
> I think he's asking for *respect* not *special status* or rights. Having
> read this list for over a year now, I can point to many postings that
> definitely have a lack of respect for those Legacy holders that
> pioneered the network you are using.
I respect 99.99% of the legacy holders; but a few bad apples have
generated much of the discussion. Like any large group, there are
always a few who deserve no respect.
We often talk about the large group of "Legacy Holders", but to me
that does them all a disservice. There are really three subgroups of
* Small holders. This is anyone who doesn't meet ARIN's current
criteria. The people with a single /24, for example.
I personally have no interest in ever taking their space away.
There are two reasons, I see it as a reasonable "reward" for being
an early adopter; and second to recover it would do no good.
Recovering a single /24 here or there because someone is using
16 of 256 IP's would leave ARIN with a pile of discontiguous /24's
that it couldn't give out with the current policy. A lot of effort
for little to no community benefit.
I do think this group should have a contract with ARIN, and pay a
small ($100 or under) fee per year to keep whois and in-addr.arpa
* Assignments. This is anyone who would receive an Assignment under
ARIN's current policies. An "end user" if you will.
My feelings here are generally similar to the small holders. I
have no interest in taking space away from this group or undergoing
a major auditing campaign. If you managed to get a /20 for your
business back in the day so be it. In particular, I don't want
to audit them to current standards, it's not worth the time and
However, there are some large assignments I think should be
audited, but audited to a different standard than we have today.
Roughly I think anyone with a /16 or larger block in the assignment
class who is using 25% or less should have to return 50% of the
space. That to me would make them comply with the spirit of 2050.
This group needs to have a contract with ARIN, and I see no reason
the standard assignment fees shouldn't apply.
* Allocations. This is anyone who would receive an allocation under
ARIN's current policies, basically Internet service providers of
one form or another. This would likely include many universities,
ISP's, and a few big corporations.
These groups should meet all current standards, but the requirements
to do so should be phased in. For instance, they would be required
to meet all current standards in 5 years, with ARIN coming up
with an appropriate "sliding scale" of compliance over those 5
Why? Well, there are a number of entities sitting on huge swaths of
address space they likely aren't using. We've seen with voluntary
returns a /8 turned in for a /16. That's 255 /16's that can be given
out to other people, and that is waste worth tracking down. A good
number of these entities have come back to ARIN looking for more space
and/or have acquired ARIN space via merger and to have one block be
"special" or "exempt" makes no sense. Several of these companies
have used these blocks to be actively anti-competitive in a way that
flies in the face of RFC2050. I can think of at least one company
that openly advertised a /24 with your T1, no justification required.
To have thumbed their nose at the community in the past in such ways
has earned them a lack of respect when it comes to the stewardship
of Internet Resources.
These legacy blocks should have SWIP or RWHOIS, should be included
in the consideration of any new requested, and should fall under
the standard fee structure.
Heck, a good number of the larger blocks are now 2 or 3 merger
or divesture steps from the original requestor. Treating them
as special is not respecting an early adopter, it's rewarding a
business man trying to use legacy status to flaunt 2050 in a way
his competitors can't.
Perhaps we would do better to divide these groups when we have the
discussion. We seem to have a lot of the first group on the list
speaking out, when most of my concern is with the third group.
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML