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

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 5/13/2011 10:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but even in those cases the agreements are much more specific.

>> 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.

And do the terms of service they agreed to allow their provider to 
reclaim the address space from them immediately and give it to someone 
else? If so, fine. But that's not what legacy holders agreed to when 
they received their allocations.

>>>
>>>> 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.

They could very well be "using" their resources for exactly the sorts of 
things that were permitted when they received their space... like using 
them internally for a network that is not directly connected to the 
Internet at this time.

> 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.

If their POCs hadn't been changed without them knowing that. Or lost due 
to a DNS lapse that was exploited by the hijacker. Etc, etc.

Matthew Kaufman