[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revised andforwarded to the Board

[Robert Bonomi]

> Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:06:34 -0500
> From: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revised
> 	andforwarded to the Board
>
> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:31 PM
> > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revised
> > andforwarded to the Board
> > 
> > 
> {much freely done snipping}
>
> > 
> > I am just leery of people saying that such-and-such is happening right
> > now and offering no proof that it's actually happening.
> > 
> > Ted
>
> I believe the proof of what I am talking about is all of the unused IPv4
> space that is not being returned so that it can be held as a speculative
> commodity.  Inaction in itself is a proof.

Unfortunately, that claim is simply -not- true.  

FIRST, you have not shown that there is, in actual fact, 'all that UNUSED, 
_allocated_, IPv4 address space.  Just because it is unrouted and unreachable
on the 'public internet' does -not- mean that it is "unused".  Allocations
were available for 'non-connected' use.

I =will= grant that it is "generally believed to be true" that there are 
non-trivial amounts of addresses in blocks that are not being actively used
for anything.

HOWEVER, even accepting as "given" that there are such 'idle' blocks, you are 
asserting a particular "why" for those blocks being 'idle', *without* any 
direct evidence to support that assertation.  

I can think of at least three other reasons why any particular block, or sub-
block of addrsses "could" be sitting idle.