[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses
frnkblk at iname.com
Tue Feb 22 00:37:46 EST 2011
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,
a) keep the verbiage of 2011-6 so that it includes all space and specify a
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.
From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of William
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
> 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
> include RSA-covered addresses in 2011-6.
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.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML