[arin-ppml] ARIN releases new version of the Legacy Registration
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Sep 8 02:13:39 EDT 2008
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 05:14:20PM -0700, Jeremy H. Griffith wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 22:17:00 +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > As one time member of the IANA team under Jon and the original
> >head of the reclaimation efforts (we recovered ~30% of the total address pool)
> >i'd like to clarify what the IANA did to "invalidate any IP assignments once it
> >is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer exists."
> >What we did was:
> > ) contact the listed resource holder(s)#
> > ) ask if they were still using the space
> > ) if so, process any updates they provided
> > ) if not, markt he space as "fallow" - leaving it usassignable for a period
> ># in some cases the organization no longer existed, in some cases the contect had died.
> Thank you! This means, then, that it was up to the registrant to
> determine whether the requirement still existed. That's what I
> thought. The LRSA should have exactly the same effect.
er, only if the registrant was available/responsive. and
that was under a slightly different suite of rules than what
the IANA may chose to do or not these days.
> Could you clarify one other point, please? IIRC, there was no
> requirement for "non-commercial" use at the time I was issued
> my Class C, in June 1992. In fact, my communications about it
> were by email, from my domain "omsys.com" (obtained from UUNET
> well before that). So I was clearly not an .org, .edu, or .gov,
> but nobody said anything about that. What was the policy at IANA
> WRT commercial/non-commercial usage at that time?
well, i can only pull from memory ... in 1992, prefixes handed
to me in my role as a network admin for a DoD contractor had to
be forceably reclaimed and we had to renumber 33 sites around the
globe because we "moved" from the disconnected to connected status
in the then address database. unconnected sites were never supposed to
be seen on the 'net and you could run commercial traffic there - it just was
not part of the ARPAnet. (check the CSnet history for commercial use)
seems that at the time, there was a policy of doing "duplicate" assignments,
those who would connect and those who would not. And if you changed status,
then you had to renumber. so, "unconnected" == do what you want, your
not part of the Internet while "connected" == part of the Internet, shared
obligation regarding stewardship.
others will no doubt correct my errors and provide additional insight.
> > The primary reason for the LRSA, imho, is to ensure that there is an
> >understanding between the resource holder(s) and the current registry. I'm all in
> >favor of retaining the origina terms and conditions, inso far as is feasable/legal
> >The fact remains that we are temporary users/stewards of the resources and that in
> >100 years, it is unlikely that either ARIN or any of us will be around to assert rights
> >under soem previous centurys half remembered expectations. And given the surprizing
> >longevity of IPv4, I think it is prudent to re-sync the understandings btwn registry and
> I agree, which is why I am persisting in trying to move the process
> toward an LRSA that all legacy registrants would be comfortable
great! agreement is a good basis on which to build.
> I have no problem with *some* fee. I think $100 is a bit high for
> a Class C, about right for a Class B, and *way* low for an A. ;-)
> Perhaps something like $25, $100, $1000? With credits for A and B
> if they return a /24 or more? (It makes no sense for a C to return
> anything but the full /24, since nothing longer is routable.)
i think the fee is not intened to reflect the range of the allocation,
but as a means to track the "freshness" of the contact information.
Its tough to track down who is responsible for a resource where the
org disbanded 5 years ago and the admin/tech contacts are dead.
a regular "hi, are you still there & using the space" in the form of
invoice and an ack inthe form of "heres my $100 - we're good" is a
decent way to track stuff.
credits for return ... i find to be entangling resource tracking and
resoruce re-use. it would be nice to disambiguate them.
wearing my rose-tinted glasses, I can forsee a future where folks won't
need 256 addresses - when 4 or 8 will do nicely for their translation
needs. So being able to return the rest makes sense to me. I am not
convinced that /24's are the permanent floor on prefix size.
> I think we're getting closer. Thanks, Bill!
> --JHG <jhg at omsys.com>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML