[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-150 Reclamation Hold

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 5/13/2011 8:11 AM, Smales, Robert wrote:
>>> ARIN-prop-150 Reclamation Hold
>>>
>>> Proposal Originator: Matthew Kaufman
>>>
>>> Proposal Version: 1
>>>
>>> Date: 13 May 2011
>>>
>>> Proposal type: new
>>>
>>> Policy term: permanent
>>>
>>> Policy statement:
>>>
>>> Add a new section to the NRPM:
>>> "All resources reclaimed by ARIN shall not be returned to the free pool
>>> or otherwise reassigned to any entity than the original registrant for a
>>> period of 36 months."
>> I am opposed to this.  36 months is far too long IMO for a "quarantine"
> +1 against. It is hard to imagine that anyone is going to return a block that was in use last week

Not intended to apply to returns.

> or that someone whose address block has been hijacked and returned to the pool isn't going to notice for two years.

This is actually *very* possibly... hijacked blocks are typically 
hijacks of things that people don't in fact notice for some time... 
could be a company that uses the block internally but doesn't advertise 
it on the global Internet right now, could be someone whose contact info 
got very out of date, could be a block where the contact info got 
screwed up a long time ago (I have a /24 myself that was listed in one 
name and got changed, without me asking, to another (the name of its 
transit ISP, in fact) around the time of the ARIN formation).

Getting the block back when you're the rightful registrant is a lot 
easier if it hasn't been assigned to someone else who is now using it 
and (post-runout) can't get a substitute... so there needs to be some 
holddown time. If you think 36 months is too long, propose a change to 
the time.

> The likliest outcome of this policy is that at some point after ARIN has handed out its last /29, someone with a pressing and reasonable need for a v4 allocation will have to be told "sorry, we will have a /22 available in 18 months' time but not before then"

"We *might* have a /22 available in 18 months time if there are no 
challenges to the reclaim we did" would be more accurate.
> Three years is a long time in the telecoms/Internet world, a dormant period of 12 months would be more reasonable.

I'd be willing to entertain shorter timers than 36 months... 12 is 
probably a little short, so maybe 18?

Matthew Kaufman