[arin-ppml] Ending point to point links as a justification for a /30?

Joe Maimon jmaimon at chl.com
Thu Jul 29 20:22:09 EDT 2010

Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>> It is up to the individual operators and network and customers and users to let it go. Not us, even for an expansive version of "us".
> It is up to the members of ARIN to choose how ARIN staff spends staff time and member money.
> As such, I do not want to see significant ARIN resources dedicated to reclamation. I support auditing
> where it is warranted as suggested in NRPM 12 and in 2010-11. So much so that I was a contributing
> author of NRPM-12 and am the author of 2010-11. However, this has to do with ongoing operations
> and stewardship of active address space. It is not intended as a concerted effort to reclaim under-
> utilized IPv4 space.
> Reclamation is a rathole that will consume vast amounts of staff time and ARIN money without
> significant gain for the community at the end. If you want to fund your own personal "Give your
> space back to ARIN" campaign and gather volunteers to help you and contributors to help
> fund it, more power to you. If you want to divert ARIN resources to such a thing, then, I, and
> the two ARIN member organizations for which I am a DMR are opposed to that.
> Owen

I am opposed to reclamation techniques that step up the confrontational 
and adversarial relationship between ARIN and address holders, even were 
it to be essential for continued consumption of IPv4 and IPv6 did not 
exist. I view increasing auditing and mandatory triggers of audits with 
similar concern.

Expending good will and buy in, not to mention financial resources, all 
for relatively limited return along with greater risks of legal and 
political liabilities is not a good bargain.

Bad cop is not a character role an organization like ARIN should choose 
to be identified with.

Incentives for efficiencies, that is where my support lands. Even then,  
I prefer less direct incentives, those that can be spread and carried by 
the invisible hand.

I would support ARIN advocacy for technical standards and features that 
were mindful of IPv4 scarcity. I would also support advocacy for 
technical standards and features that would help smooth migration and 
transition to IPv6. I believe ARIN does have a role to play there and 
not just a passive one. Let them be a voice of the addressing community, 
a liaison, to help focus on those concerns in many an arena.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list