[arin-ppml] Reclaiming unused IPv4 space (WAS: Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):GlobalPolicy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion- Last Call (textrevised))
bicknell at ufp.org
Wed Nov 3 13:59:43 EDT 2010
In a message written on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 11:16:43AM -0600, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> Section 3.6 of the NRPM (the result of dp 2008-7), was meant to help
> resolve this problem by requiring POCs to respond to an annual "ping."
All this policy does is allow POC's to be marked as invalid, there
is no way to remove the POC, much less the resource record entirely.
To that end, it is a first step to identify the resources that might
be abandoned, but it is not the process to actually recover them.
> I suspect class Cs and especially Bs may be worth more than we might
> now guess, shortly.
I won't speculate on price, just their ability to "extend runout" or
serve the potential demand. By those mesaures I think they are
> > IMHO the minimum that ARIN should do is have yearly contact with
> > anyone holding a number resource, including legacy holders. I don't
> > know what the cost is to send a letter, get back a respose and check
> > off "yes that person still exists", but I can't imagine it is a
> > lot. I would be very supportive of a policy that caused ARIN to
> > charge a fee to legacy holders of $5, or $10 or whatever that cost
> > is per year to "keep their database entry current" so the community
> > can detect situations like this one.
> Wouldn't that require them to sign something (like an LRSA)?
Sign a check, most definately. :)
I'm not going to wade into which contract (RSA/LRSA, or something all
together new) would need to be signed. I'm fairly sure the contract
issues can be resolved if folks really want to resolve them.
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML