[arin-ppml] Taking back UNUSED addresses.

[Davey, George]

> I agree 100% this will make no significant difference in the IPv4 exhaustion date.  My worry here has nothing to do with "extending"
IPv4.
Then don't waste your time doing it or writing about doing it.

> I would much prefer if this space was all returned to the free pool first such that it could be given out and used actively, and thus not be a hijacking target.
99.9% Hacking/spamming occurs from compromised Windows boxes connected on properly allocated non-legacy IP blocks, such as rr.com DSL for instance.

> Unfortunately I can't think of a more effective way to figure out which space to reclaim than to tell all those still using the space to sign a contract and pay a fee yearly, and any block without a contract after a particular date will be automatically reclaimed.

Alas the true motive is spoken, getting more people to buy into the LRSA scam.


Maybe I am the only one that seems to see a sense of repetition gravitating toward selling of the LRSA agreement using different carrots and bogus scams and stats.
I feel like I am stuck in quick sand....or like I am being brainwashed.


George Davey, B.S. MCSE
Network Administrator
3200 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA  50312
515.271.1544
FAX 515.271.4200
George.Davey at dmu.edu
www.dmu.edu



-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:53 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Taking back UNUSED addresses.

In a message written on Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:19:15PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> The only official stats I've seen that break out legacy assignments are at:
> http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/PDF/monday/Legacy_stats_
> Plzak.pdf
>
> According to that preso, 56% of legacy assignments that don't show up,
> even partially, in the DFZ.  Also, 52% of the network records and 48%
> of

That is what I figured would be the case.

> Not that any of this is going to make any significant difference to
> the exhaustion date, but IMHO it does make ARIN less of a target for
> complaints (legal or moral) if we've cleaned up the most obvious waste
> of space before we have to start denying qualified new applicants.

I agree 100% this will make no significant difference in the IPv4 exhaustion date.  My worry here has nothing to do with "extending"
IPv4.

Today there is a very limited motivation to hijack these fallow blocks.  Generally hijacking is only done by "bad actors" pushing spam or malware, and thus is a relatively minor problem that can be kept under control.

When there are no more free IPv4 addresses though everyone who needs space has an instant motive to hijack a unused legacy block.  This activity could grow quite frenzied quite quickly, and cause ARIN to expend a lot of time and effort to try and keep records accurate.

I would much prefer if this space was all returned to the free pool first such that it could be given out and used actively, and thus not be a hijacking target.

I think we need to find a way to solve this, and solve it quickly.
If it means we have to let someone using a single IP address keep their /16, that's fine with me as long as it is announced on the global internet.  The legacy space problem isn't about taking away anyone's space.

Unfortunately I can't think of a more effective way to figure out which space to reclaim than to tell all those still using the space to sign a contract and pay a fee yearly, and any block without a contract after a particular date will be automatically reclaimed.

It's quite possible the LRSA still needs work to accomplish this goal, but the time is fading fast.

The down side is huge, if 56% of the legacy space ends up being a "free for all" of hijackers trying to get space it will cost all of us in the form of huge operational issues, costs for ARIN, and ultimately the decrease in value of IPv4.

--
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/