[arin-ppml] ULA-C

[Chris Grundemann]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 23:34, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
> well, OK. If they don't re-up, and continue using it, they risk your wrath. When they were validly signed up, you didn't exchange that route with them. Now that they are not validly signed up, you adamantly refuse to exchange that route with them.
>
> And....?
>

And... this is exactly why we have ARIN and why we pay them.

If the Org doesn't renew (re-up) then it is the registries duty to
determine if they have refused or if they have ceased to exist (or
just don't need the IPs anymore).

By not renewing, the Org runs the risk of no longer having a unique
block of ULA-C and they lose reverse DNS (and any other) services on
said block. This is likely reason enough to keep re-upping as long as
they keep using the IPs (assuming that the process is not overly
onerous).

Another point to consider is that most organizations will likely have
ULA-C AND IPv4 and/or GUA and/or an AS. Assuming that the ULA-C is not
their only resource, the renewal (re-up) process should be a single
touch for all resources - another reason that a functioning Org which
is using the space assigned is unlikely to stop renewing.

And finally, if the Org in question really has only one block of ULA-C
and they stop renewing; then the registry (ARIN) is responsible to
track the Org down and determine if the block can be reclaimed for
some other Org to use.

Plus they get my wrath.

~Chris

>
> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>
>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org