[arin-ppml] The Library Book Approach to IPv4 Scarcity

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 18:31:36 EDT 2008

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> My concern with this embryonic proposal is as follows:
> 1) If it worked it would merely add fragmented blocks back into the IPv4
> pool, thus
> increasing the BGP route entries when those were reassigned.


> 2) You and I both have proposals in process to attempt to get a handle on
> the amount
> of abandonded IPv4 by verifying the POCs.  I would prefer to allow those to
> mature and
> (hopefully) be added to the NRPM first, and I think it is unwise for you,
> particularly, to
> get involved in pushing another controversial proposal until the dust has
> settled on the
> first.

I completely agree but decided to post this anyway (after a few days
of wrestling with it) because we just have so little time left at this
point.  If this proposal were to be adopted or were to spark a better
idea in someone else, it has to happen soon; the longer we wait, the
less effective any policy change will be.  To borrow an analogy; the
Titanic sunk in part because they initiated the turn too late.

> 3) Morally I do not think ARIN or the community has the right to press
> holders for
> unabandonded, unused IPv4 until ARIN can prove to the community's
> satisfaction
> that it has collected up abandoned IPv4.  I personally have a subnet on my
> list that
> I know for a fact is abandonded, and I have provided ARIN with the
> documentation
> to prove it i's abandonded, several years ago, yet the subnet has not been
> absorbed into
> the free pool.  I would strenuously object to ARIN bugging me about possibly
> unused
> numbers we have in our allocated block, while doing nothing about a block I
> know
> is abandonded, and have the documentation to prove is abandonded.

Again, time is of the essence; this is also why my first point of
explanation was to state that, imo:
> 1) This policy should be part of a comprehensive plan including:
> - A policy to identify abandoned space
> - A policy to reclaim abandoned space
> - A policy to restrict some (if not all) IPv4 space allocations/assignments
> to new entrants deploying IPv6
> - A continuing increase in utilization requirements

> 4) I feel this proposal diverts from energy spent on work to get IPv6 online
> and
> routed.
> Ted
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 11:53 AM
> Subject: [arin-ppml] The Library Book Approach to IPv4 Scarcity
> This is (yet another) a policy that may help us ease away from IPv4,
> maintain contact between ARIN and it's members and maybe even avoid a
> transfer market.  I have been kicking the general idea around for over six
> months and it has recently matured with input from some very intelligent
> folks.  I do not want to associate them with this particular idea
> unwittingly so I won't name them here but I would like to thank them here
> anonymously - thank you.  It is not an official proposal yet as I fear that
> there won't be much support for it.  If you do think that this is a good
> idea or at least on the right track, please let me know - on or off list.  I
> don't want to bang my head against the wall too long if I am alone.  Also,
> if you hate it, think I am crazy or just don't think it will work, I would
> love to hear why.   Although many have influenced it, this is my work and my
> opinion alone and does not represent the views of any organization or
> individuals I may be affiliated with. ((IMHO))
> Thank you,
> ~Chris
> == Potential Proposal:
> Once every 12months each holder of IPv4 addresses is required to fully
> document their IP utilization and demonstrate that the current utilization
> standard for IPv4 assignments and allocations is being met. This shall
> include all currently held IPv4 space, regardless of origin or registration
> status.
> A fee shall be assessed for underutilization or insufficient documentation.
>     * The fee for one 12m period shall be waived if the address holder
> returns a contiguous block of IPv4 space equal to at least 1/256th of
> currently held space and no less than one /24 (class C equivalent) to ARINs
> free pool.
>     * The fee for one 12m period shall be waived if the address holder signs
> an ARIN RSA for any uncontested and unregistered IPv4 space, this waiver
> shall be restricted to one use per member organization.
> == Rationale:
> IP space (v4, v6, vX) is a public resource and as such should be borrowed,
> used and returned by those with a need for it. Think of IPv4 prefixes like
> library books (another finite public resource): When you check out a book,
> you are expected to return it on a certain date. If that date comes and you
> are still actively using the book, you are allowed to state that and keep
> the book. Since we are at a point now where IPv4 space is recognizably
> finite, it makes sense to implement a similar policy at the RIR(s) - that is
> a time frame. This policy would require that after X amount of time, the
> LIR/EU would need to return to the RIR with justification if they wish to
> keep the space. The burden should be on the LIR/EU to prove that they are
> actively using the space.
> == Some thoughts:
> 1) This policy should be part of a comprehensive plan including:
> - A policy to identify abandoned space
> - A policy to reclaim abandoned space
> - A policy to restrict some (if not all) IPv4 space allocations/assignments
> to new entrants deploying IPv6
> - A continuing increase in utilization requirements
> 2) I do worry that some (perhaps many) will try to game the system by
> exaggerating or falsifying 'proof' of efficient utilization. At the same
> time I think that having that caveat will make this much easier for most to
> swallow and hopefully accept than a similar proposal which assessed the fee
> to all holders of IPv4 space regardless of utilization. The idea (hope) is
> that as IPv4 becomes more and more scarce, the community will raise the
> utilization requirements to include things like NAT and IPv6. This would
> provide a constant pressure on all community members to become more
> efficient in their IPv4 use which in turn should help keep some addresses
> free for new entrants. This is the opposite effect of an unrestricted market
> based approach which would encourage large holders of addresses to hold more
> and more IPv4, to store value and bar new competition.
> 3) I am not sure what the fee should be or if it should be spelled out in
> policy, this is probably something that ARIN staff should set and be able to
> change when needed. Perhaps the policy should define simply how the fee is
> assessed, ie: per IP or per % underutilized, etc. It may also be helpful or
> necessary to add a statement in the policy requiring any proceeds from these
> fees to be used for something in particular (legacy outreach, IPv6
> promotion, payment/credit to orgs with utilization above the efficiency
> requirement, etc).
> 4) I expect that some (possibly many) organizations will find it easier to
> simply return some space than even trouble themselves with trying to justify
> their current holdings. This will be especially true of organizations which
> hold large amounts of space.
> 5) I am expecting that bringing resources under an ARIN RSA may be easier
> and less painful for organizations which already hold other RSA covered
> space than a full IP audit or returning space. Under this assumption the
> final sentence has two goals:
> A) To help incent organizations to secure legacy space in any existing or
> inevitable grey/black market early on (and get it over with). If there are
> no back-room deals for exchange of legacy space now or in the future, than
> this is not an issue and can be ignored, this policy will have no affect in
> this area.
> B) To get any transfered legacy IPv4 space (see point A) under an RSA so
> that we are all playing on the same field by the same rules. I think if
> everyone had a more similar role in the game we might work together better.
> I will note however that legacy holders with no RSA covered space have no
> increased incentive to sign an RSA under this proposal then they do today
> (and no increased risk in not signing one).
> 6) I originally considered a period of 24 months but shortened it to 12
> months considering the rapid approach of IANA free pool exhaustion; 24
> months will be far to long of an interval to have a significant impact on
> IPv4 availability.
> --
> Chris Grundemann
> www.chrisgrundemann.com
> www.linkedin.com/in/cgrundemann

Chris Grundemann

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list