[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] [Fwd: ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks]

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 2/16/2011 11:01 AM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
>> On 2/15/2011 10:21 PM, Eric Westbrook wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 22:36, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu
>>> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>      >  If the effort is to entice legacy space holders into joining
>>>     ARIN, don't
>>>      >  try to penalize them.  Give them a positive incentive.
>>>
>>>     I don't see this proposal as involving any penalties. Indeed, it is
>>>     the absence of this kind of thinking that consistently leads to
>>>     proposals to force legacy holders into the ARIN regime. The
>>>     (implied) incentive in 133 is that legacy holders can go to other
>>>     service providers - assuming of course, that we retain a consistent
>>>     and integrated whois that works across multiple service providers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing's broken today with respect to the services in question.  I can
>>> only envision additional costs, rigmarole, and coordination issues to
>>> come with a multiple-provider regime.
>>>
>>> Perhaps what's broken is that legacy holders like me don't pay -- at
>>> least, that seems to be the source of some significant outrage here.
>>
>> Not to me, and it's never really been that much.
>>
>> What I really resent most of all are the legacy-assigned blocks that
>> are NOT in use.
>>
>> I don't care if you were assigned a legacy block 15 years ago that your
>> paying nothing for - and you have 60% or more utilized.  If anything,
>> you have my support to have at it.
>>
>> But I do very much care if you have a legacy block that you got 15
>> years ago that is at 1% utilization because your too fat, dumb, and lazy
>> to renumber into a /24 within that block and return the rest to
>> the RIR.
>
>
> I oppose this policy proposal.
>
> More generally - the number of "large enough to matter" blocks which
> may be truly badly utilized and therefore highly attractive to
> encourage legacy holders to renumber and vacate isn't that big in the
> great scheme of things.  It will not save "the end of the world" (IPv6
> transition imminence) from happening, given that if they haven't
> already started, a renumbering effort for a large enterprise will take
> months to low years to fully develop and implement.  I doubt that we
> could free up IPv4 space at the rate that APNIC needs more.
>
> IF this were to be successful, the time to do it was 2-4 years ago.

This kind of thing was discussed 2-4 years ago and the math didn't
support it then, either.

Ted