[arin-ppml] End non-public IPv4 assignments?

[Jimmy Hess]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:33 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
hm..
When we are discussing  non-public / non-connected network
assignments,   do we have
information about numbers / amount of addresses that were allowed and
allocated under this policy?

If an allocation under the policy has never been made, there would be
no point in keeping it.
If small numbers of small allocations have been made, then the impact
on legitimate use of IP space
of restricting the amount and size of non-connected allocations would
be  minimal or non-existent.

At the very least an org applying for IP space for use with
non-connected networks should be required
to state that is what they are doing,   and  indicate  via  WHOIS
which  IP space is declared to be non-connected,
so they can be added to bogon lists,  in order to curtail
opportunistic abuse/hijacking that will otherwise occur


> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
[snip]
> My crystal ball is no clearer than yours, but if you want my
> prediction it's this: either there will be an IP address market or
> we'll decide to reclaim addresses which we determine aren't being put
> to "good enough use." There's too much money in play; the notion that

I would not support ARIN ever entertaining the idea of reclaiming any
addresses properly issued
by ARIN under ARIN policies in effect at the time of allocation,  or a
legacy RSA; unless there was
fraud involved,  non-payment of required fees, breach of the RSA,
willful refusal to provide accurate
RWHOIS/or follow reassignment policies, in regards to justified need,
and maintenance of valid POCs,
OR  changes to the network  after the receipt of addresses  cause
justified need  to no longer exist
for that much IP space.
In most of those cases, the assignments would be subject to being
revoked under current policy.


--
-JH