[arin-ppml] A compromise on legacy space?

[Lee Dilkie]

Brian Johnson wrote:
> In response to Lee, I am still wondering why, other than IPv4
> exhaustion, ARIN even needs to do anything with legacy space. Why not
> just put them in a box and set them in a closet. Provide them no
> services except entries saying that these are legacy assignments... good
> luck, if any entries at all.  I would like to see how soon people start
> black-hole routing ranges and blocking access for legacy holders to
> their networks due to possible abuse.
>   
That was kind of my point, just leave them alone. The problem is the
"ipv4 exhaustion". Some folks seem to view legacy space as a free gold mine.
> As a regional provider, I would block any questionable access from
> networks without valid contact details readily available. One of my
> resources is IP based WHOIS. It could be possible that in the event of
> malicious traffic from Lee's network, I would block access to my network
> and/or other providers may do the same. This may inspire the legacy
> space holders to either get in the boat, or build their own. I think
> ARIN would likely be less costly, but have done no research to support
> that claim.
>   
Presumably you, like I, block malicious traffic from networks regardless
of the contact details, it *is* malicious after all..... The fact is, my
contact information, like many legacy holders, *is* up to date. My
in-addr *is* also up to date. I am a good net citizen and I wouldn't at
all mind contributing a "fair/reasonable" share towards the costs to
keep my records available. (I'd prefer a single 10 year payment than the
yearly stuff, that should cover the lifespan of IPv4) But what I don't
want is to locked into some contract that has clauses that take my space
away from me (or the threat of such). Something along the lines of:
- here's my 10 year, $200 membership, join me up.
- I promise to keep my contact info up-to-date
- here's where/how you can reach me if we need to talk (email addresses
in whois are so spam targeted that they're simply not reliable)
> I also thought legacy holders always boasted that they were among the
> creators/innovators of the Internet. Lee's statements indicate a
> stagnant thought pattern. That the Internet is what it is and that's it.
> It appears to me that ARIN membership is now taking over the innovator
> role for the Internet and that some/most legacy holders are more of a
> barrier than a player/enabler/innovator.
>   
Hey, we were. But guess what, big money and even bigger business took
over. That's the facts. My little community ISP couldn't survive once
the big guns came to town. I'm now the owner of a little /24 and doing
all my "innovation" in IPv6.

Which brings me to another issue....
> The good news is that there will be no legacy space in IPv6. If/when we
> move to IPv6 this is a non-issue.
>   
Well, I'd argue that the lack of any kind of "legacy" IPv6 hasn't helped
get of IPv6 out the door. I'd argue that we're missing the "innovators"
that we need in that space to create the compelling
applications/networks to drive demand for IPv6. I notice that none of
the big guns in my town have rolled out any IPv6. Big money is sitting
on it's hands as far as I can see. But my little network is fully
(although tunneled), IPv6 enabled. (but frankly, tunneling sucks)

Of course, that's only my point of view from my little neck of the woods.

-lee

PS. BTW, I think a fundamental problem ARIN has is the disparity, in
size, between the players in it's "community". Think about the size of
the largest ISPs here, and then about the smallest players (like
myself). It's very difficult to resolve the issues facing the community
across so many orders of magnitude. (A large ISP probably burns $100
just reading this email whereas it's a couple months worth of beer for me!)