[arin-ppml] A compromise on legacy space?
J. R. Westmoreland
jr at jrw.org
Tue Sep 9 15:24:49 EDT 2008
I'm in agreement with your idea but ...
I still have a hard time choking down $100 for my /24 address block when
someone, say like my previous employer, pays that same $100 for an address
space /16, 256 times larger than mine.
When I was last there they had two blocks of /24 exposed outside to the net.
That seems to me to be a bigger waste than my /24, which if needed I could
squeeze down by at least half if required. It just seems to be that the cost
should fit the resource usage in some more reasonable way.
As you said, many of the /24 holders are those who are using then personally
or as consultants or small businesses. To them a large fee could be much
harder to handle than a larger company.
I know that mentioning domain service is not exactly mixing apples and
apples but ...
If you have 25 domains you don't just pay one fee you pay a fee for each
resource you hold.
Shouldn't something like this be on the table as well? I fully understand
that there are many resource holders that could take offense but I still
can't help wondering if this might not be a more fair distribution of costs.
If something like this were in place, I'd obtain, read, sign and pay
instantly with no further issue.
I check my contact information when ever it needs to be updated. Hence, the
reason I was subscribed to this list.
My data was up-to-date and I could be contacted as required by the original
rules put in place when I received my block.
J. R. Westmoreland
E-mail: jr at jrw.org
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:42 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] A compromise on legacy space?
There are many reasons people are interested in legacy space, and I
personally find some level of merit to all of them:
- Updating contact information and/or securing (e.g. via PGP, S/MIME)
updates to the records.
- Having Legacy Holders pay their "fair share".
- Finding fallow space, and reclaiming it. [Both the truly fallow,
e.g. all people/companies associated with it are dead/dissolved,
and space where someone is still associated, but it is not being
- Preventing unfair addressing competition (ISP's giving away a /24
of their legacy space with a new circuit, no justification
As I've also said before, there are multiple subgroups of legacy space
users. Treating a person with their own personal /24 the same way a large
ISP is treated that has a legacy /8 doesn't make any sense. They are
different situations, and very different cost/benefit situations for ARIN
and the community.
It seems to me it may be prudent then to divide the group. I've been
pondering how to do that in a fair manor though, and I think I've come up
with a good idea. I post it here for everyone else to rip apart.
Definition: Legacy holders who also hold space covered by a regular
Definition: All legacy holders not in group #1.
There are a few minor implementation details that may need to appear in the
definition. For instance, is group one determined by ORG-ID, by legal
entity, or some other definition. I honestly don't know the details we
could get some input from staff. The concept though is if you run a network
using both legacy and ARIN assigned space you're in that group though.
Now, the question is, how do we treat those two groups differently? My
proposal is also simple:
Upon the next regular renewal of the ARIN RSA all legacy resources,
covered by an existing RSA, LRSA, or not covered at all shall be
rolled under a single, current, ARIN RSA.
A "Legacy Service Agreement" (I won't use LSA, that's too confusing)
shall be created. It should state:
- ARIN provides services to legacy holders, including but not
limited to: whois, rdns, uniqueness, public policy meetings,
mailing lists, and more.
- The Legacy Holder must pay a fee (fees are not policy, but I'm
thinking around $100 per year as has been discussed) to continue
the use of these services.
The Legacy Services Agreement can be terminated by the legacy holder
at any time. Of course, at that time ARIN may cease to provide whois,
rdns, or any other service. No revoking of services, no one sided
termination, etc. Those two simple ideas, wrapped up in the minimum
legal language necessary.
Group #1 fixes what I feel are the worst violations of the community trust.
There are plenty of ISP's with legacy resources and ARIN assigned resources
that have used the legacy ones over the years to game the system. At
various points in time I have seen first hand companies giving out resources
with no justification, or coming back to ARIN for new resources without
showing they have used their legacy resources. I believe this has always
been unfair to the community as a whole, and that it is absurd that a single
company might be able to treat two numbers from the same pool differently
because of when they received them. They are a global, community resource
and need to be treated as such.
Group #2 doesn't generally have that problem. It's a bunch of individuals
and small businesses that have never 'come back to the well'. They are
living in their legacy space and happy to keep doing so. There is no
fairness issue here, no need to expend resources harassing this group. As
I've stated before, I strongly believe it is in both parties interest to
have a contract, and also to have some requirement for periodic touch.
What do people think?
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
More information about the ARIN-PPML