[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement

[George Bonser]

> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On
> Behalf Of ARIN
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:23 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement

Opposed.

v4 is dead.  We can quickly get into the realm of diminishing returns
with this policy where an increasing amount of effort is expended to
free up a decreasing amount of resources.  Expending more effort on v4
is probably not a productive use of time.  Also, the potential to create
an adversarial environment between ARIN and the rest of the community
with this policy is great.

"If the organization does not voluntarily return resources or update
reassignment information as requested, ARIN will cease providing reverse
DNS services and/or revoke any resources issued by ARIN as required to
bring the organization into overall compliance."

I have enough trouble as it is proving I use IP addresses that are not
accessible from the Internet (v4 IPs used in VPN communications with
various third parties, for example).  The notion of "prove to our
satisfaction that you are complying with the policy or we will break
your business" doesn't sit well with me.  It seems there is the
potential for a lot of harm for little good.  Sweeping up crumbs of v4
space (a /24 here a /24 there) isn't going to do anyone much good and
the vast majority of the community already does what they can to make
sure they are in compliance.  We have enough operational problems as it
is without having to create a potentially adversarial environment with
ARIN.

" To date the community has not documented or firmly established use of
an effective enforcement mechanism."

The enforcement happens when additional resources are requested.  If you
aren't using what you already have to enough of a degree, you are not
given any additional.  Going back and attempting to revoke already
issued resources is much more difficult than simply not issuing more.
Often addresses are used for communications paths that are not visible
to the general Internet yet must remain globally unique.  Short of
providing device configurations, I am not sure how I can "prove" that a
certain /24 or pair of /24's are in use as they may not even be
announced to the Internet by BGP and may not be "pingable" from the
Internet yet are in constant use.  There are probably many others with
the same sort of issue.  It is already hard enough and we already try as
hard as we can to stay within the guidelines.  Of the people who don't,
how much space does that actually represent?  I have a feeling this
policy would generate a large amount of work (and stress) on everyone
involved for very little benefit.

It would be better, in my opinion, not to consier IPv4 as a viable
long-term service delivery mode going forward.