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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 13, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 5/13/2011 8:38 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:49 AM, ARIN<info at arin.net>  wrote:
>>> ARIN-prop-150 Reclamation Hold
>>> Proposal Originator: Matthew Kaufman
>>> 
>>> 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."
>> LIRs are prevented from implementing this sort of policy since such
>> reserved addresses do not count towards their utilization. What
>> problems are solved by implementing this policy at an RIR level but
>> requiring LIRs to not implement the same?
> 
> LIRs have direct circuit-level (or equivalent) relationships with the address users. RIRs do not.
> 
Not necessarily true. As was pointed out in the opposition to my prop. 139
there are several instances of LIRs without circuit-level relationships.

> It would be very unusual for someone to have provider-assigned space and no ongoing contact or billing relationship with the provider, whereas legacy space in ARIN's database is exactly like that.
> 
I can point to more than 100,000 users without a billing relationship that
have address assignments from at least one provider, so, I don't think
that is as unusual as you claim. Some of these users have just over 18
quintillion addresses, while others have 66,537 times that much or
even more.

>> 
>> 
>>> This provides sufficient time for the resources to go unused
>>> prior to reassignment and/or to be re-justified by the original
>>> registrant, or returned to the proper holder in the case of hijackings.
>> This could be solved with a much weaker requirement: "ARIN shall not
>> reallocate recovered address space while its status is under dispute
>> by a prior registrant."
> 
> How can the prior registrant initiate a dispute in time if they weren't aware of a hijacking and subsequent immediate reclaimation?
> 

Arguably if they were not aware, then, they were not "using" their
resources. However, if they have followed policy and kept their
POCs up to date, the POCs would have been notified well
before the "immediate" reclamation which usually takes at least
6 months.


Owen