[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses

[Frank Bulk]

Thanks, Bill, for clarifying.

If I make the assumption that legacy and non-legacy space are almost
equivalent in terms of their reusability after their return, for
simplicity's sake it would be easier to keep the recycle times in sync,
either:
a) keep the verbiage of 2011-6 so that it includes all space and specify a
time
b) exclude legacy space in 2011-6 and leave recycle time to the discretion
of ARIN staff.
In both cases, the recycle time would be effectively the same.

If we don't specify a time period in policy 2011-6, I'm not sure if author's
concern regarding "sit[ting] idle" would be met.  Perhaps min/max time would
give the ARIN staff the flexibility but also address the author's concern.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of William
Herrin
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 11:14 PM
To: frnkblk at iname.com
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
> Does the existing "RSA-covered address recovery" include the 30-day
window?
> In your previous comment I know you wanted to leave that timeframe to the
> discretion of ARIN staff, but the timeframe is one reason why we may want
to
> include RSA-covered addresses in 2011-6.

Hi Frank,

I believe the recycle period is currently much longer, but then we
haven't run out of addresses yet. If we don't set it in policy, ARIN
staff is free to set a then-optimal recycle period.

-Bill



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004