[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))
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Thu Nov 4 21:46:55 EDT 2010
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:59, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> 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.
As I see it, there are four parts to this policy:
1) ARIN is required to perform the annual email ping.
2) Unresponsive POC email addresses shall be marked as such in the
database. As you note.
3) POCs which ARIN deems wholly unresponsive (likely after phone and
postal mail contact attempts fail) are marked as invalid.
4) Resources with zero valid POCs are cast out of the shadows for what they are.
There was a concern that removing the record could potentially cause
harm, where marking it appropriately was the best of both worlds; you
still have a POC to try, but you are aware that the POC is likely not
going to respond. For blocks with no valid contacts at all - perhaps
filtering becomes attractive, to mitigate your exposure.
> 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.
Agreed, that policy is merely a first step and does not address reclamation.
To the extent that anyone believes there is a need to take the next
step and create a policy to push ARIN towards reclamation of unused
space, particularly space without a valid registrant, I have some
policy text put together and would love to hear from you off list. I
invite all interested parties to contact me.
>> 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 measures I think they are
Fair enough. I fully agree that address recovery is highly unlikely to
extend runout in any meaningful way. But I also agree with you that it
has value in other dimensions.
>> > 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.
The problem that I see here is that in many cases it appears that only
folks on one side of the contract want the issues resolved, which
creates an impasse. How hard it is to overcome that impasse I am
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML