[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion- Last Call (textrevised)

Tue Nov 2 23:30:48 EDT 2010

On 11/2/2010 5:38 PM, Bill Darte wrote:
> Never, in my memory, has the debate over recovery of legacy addresses
> been given more than superficial treatment.
>

I think that this is because ultimately the goal isn't to take legacy
resources away that are IN USE.

Ultimately the goal should be to take legacy resources away that are 
either being hoarded, or are abandoned.

Aaron's example is towards the point, but it doesn't go far enough.
You see, as long as all of the 256 people who "bought" the /24's from
Bob are USING THEM then really there isn't a problem.

The problem is that 3 years after Bob has done his "sale" about
50% of the orgs he "sold" to are still using their /24's - and the
rest aren't.  Bob got his money, he's not interested anymore.  And
ARIN has no lever to make Bob get interested.

> Seems that the typical statements that stop debate is that such a course
> would be prohibitively expensive from a legal point of view

Rubbish.  If ARIN takes over an abandoned Legacy resource then since
it is abandoned, the original org that had it cannot suffer damages,
and since it hasn't suffered damages, it has no standing to sue in
court.

The problem is that since the original Legacy holder did NOT ever sign
an agreement with ARIN then ARIN has no contractual justification to 
take over an abandoned Legacy assignment even if they know it's unused, 
because so far the community has not given ARIN permission to do this 
via policy in the NRPM.

  and a real
> PR nightmare to boot...or at least not a 'value' proposition.
>
> One way to have such a debate is to make a proposal through the regular
> process of the PDP. If you feel strongly about your position, you are
> welcome to draft such a proposal and let the discussion begin....
>

Uh, I did.  And it was my first draft of the POC cleanup that 
kickstarted the later policy that ultimately resulted in the system
to purge abandoned POCs.

However, I did not address POCs that RESPONDED yet were NOT using
Legacy (or other) resources.

Right now, Legacy netblocks that are attached to POCs that ARIN
determines are non-respondent, can ultimately be freed up.  All ARIN
has to do is determine a POC is abandoned and when ALL POCs that
are on a particular Legacy block change to abandoned status, then
the resource is, (in my opinion) effectively freed, and (in my opinion)
ARIN should move it back into the free pool of assignable IPv4

I would hope that ARIN would just do this by themselves, but maybe
we need yet another policy to state the obvious.

But that does not answer the Legacy space that is unused, yet still
has a respondent POC on it.  Or Legacy space that the master block
has an abandoned POC but has active POC's that are in SWIPS that
were filed on parts of it.

And on top of that, not too long ago I thought the AC stated they would
no longer entertain drafts of policy changes that dealt entirely with
IPv4.  So please don't duck behind this "if you think you have a better
method then make a proposal" bullcrap.

There are too many people now in the ARIN community that just want to
bury IPv4 and really aren't interested in mining possibly usable IPv4
from Legacy resources.  They want to believe if we just ignore it we
can leave IPv4 behind in a few years and switch everything to IPv6 and
they won't believe this isn't going to happen right away until it just
doesn't happen right away.  Maybe they are right.  I just hope that if
they are not, that they start mining.

Ted

> bd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Aaron Wendel
> Sent: Tue 11/2/2010 6:10 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global
> Proposal):GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion-
> Last Call (textrevised)
>
> I took John's comments here:
>
>
>
> "The only they can't do is transfer resources outside of the policies, as
> ARIN has to maintain the registration database in accordance with the
> community policies as adopted."
>
>
>
> To mean that ARIN would not update the registration database with
> information for a new org if legacy space was transferred outside of the
> ARIN rules.
>
>
>
> My question about that is what happens to the integrity of the registration
> data when Bob, who obtained a /16 back in 1990, decides to sell it off in
> /24s to 256 different people? Bob's given all those people LOAs with their
> new /24s so they have no issues getting them routed but ARIN refuses to
> change the registration. Bob's not in control of those blocks anymore and
> doesn't care to answer questions about them and the "community" has no way
> of knowing who has those blocks and how to contact them.
>
>
>
> Ted is correct. The community has given ARIN the mandate to hold out the
> carrot in the form of the LRSA but no one seems to want to give ARIN a
> stick. I would assume that's because the majority of the active ARIN
> members, and by active I mean ones that participate on the list or at
> meetings, are legacy holders themselves.
>
>
>
> If ARIN, whose primary job is to maintain the registration data, can't
> insure the integrity of that registration data any more then what's the
> point? Once one legacy holder kicks them in the groin and they don't fight
> back it'll be a feeding frenzy.
>
>
>
> I think the responsible thing for the community to do would be to give ARIN
> the stick they need.
>
>
>
> Aaron
>
>
>
>
>
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:38 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):
> GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion - Last Call
> (textrevised)
>
>
>
> On 11/2/2010 2:42 PM, John Curran wrote:
>  > On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>  >
>  >> John,
>  >>
>  >> How was the registration database maintained in accordance with
> community
>  >> policies and yet the ORG and POC information for some legacy records has
>  >> been changed?
>  >
>  > Organizations with legacy address blocks may update their point of
> contact
>  > information (in fact, they can now do it online via ARIN Online, probably
>  > why we have more than 20,000 ARIN Online accounts... :-) Remember, we are
>  > actively requesting all organizations to update their Point of Contact
> (POC)
>  > information via electronic reminders. More information about this program
>  > and its progress was given at the Atlanta meeting:
>  >
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXV/PDF/Monday/Nobil
> e_POC_Validation.pdf>
>  >
>  >> Are we to assume by your statements that the 16/8 block HAS to have an
> LSRA
>  >
>  >> signed, since the original recipients of this legacy block are no longer
>  >> listed in the registration database?
>  >> And, if this is the case, can we assume that justification was provided
> per
>  >> NRPM 8.2?
>  >
>
> Mike, the problem with the Legacy holders is that the ARIN community has
> never agreed to exert the RIR's authority over them. There are many
> historical reasons (some valid, some not) for this, but the Legacy
> holders aren't stupid. They know that until the community unites
> against them and tells them all to sign an LSRA and thus come under
> obligation to the NRPM and it's justification requirements, (or face the
> whois database being purged of their records) that they
> can do whatever the hell they want. Including changing the POC to
> some other org, essentially transferring the block to someone else.
> John Curran is just trying to say this in a nice fashion to you. But
> truthfully he has absolutely no lever over the non-LRSA Legacy holders,
> because the one lever he can use, the community won't give to ARIN.
>
> I frankly think that the situation now is more of a fairness thing,
> it is grossly unfair to the LRSA signatories for some of their peers
> to to continue to flout the intent of the LRSA and ignore it. I do
> not understand why the RSA holders unite against the Legacy holders
> and I -definitely- don't understand why the LRSA signatories unite
> against the non-LRSA Legacy holders, but until that happens, nothing
> is going to change.
>
> Ted
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _____
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.