[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

And I will point out that the entire point of validating POCs is to 
discover things like /16's that haven't been used for 15 years.

It would seem to me that ARIN staff vacillates between loving and hating 
section 3.6 of the NRPM.  Some years they see any attempt at
housecleaning stale assignments that are just on autopilot (like this
mythical /16 - I love how when people cite these examples they never
state the actual numbers - hello!) as an obstacle to increased IPv6
adoption so they hate it and undercut it.   Other years they desperately
need to get some IPv4 for someone very big and powerful with maybe a
whole lot of guns and rocket launchers and such and they love this
section since it allows them to scrape together some IPv4 for a need.

Ted

On 11/27/2017 4:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Before we travel too far down this branch of discussion, I’d like to
> point out that fees are not within the realm of ARIN policy debate and
> therefore aren’t really an appropriate topic for this list.
>
> If you’d like to discuss such a fee, there is arin-discuss (open to
> Members/Staff/Board/AC) where fee discussions are appropriate.
>
> Alternatively, there is also the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion
> Process (ACSP) available via the Participate tab on the ARIN web site.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Owen
>
>> On Nov 27, 2017, at 13:08 , Steven Ryerse
>> <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I don’t see how you can go back and start charging Legacy holders that
>> obtained their blocks before ARIN was created. You would have to
>> charge big companies like AT&T & IBM and you would have to somehow
>> charge the Dept. of Defense and so forth to make it fair to everyone.
>> Seems like that ship sailed long ago.
>> /Steven Ryerse/
>> /President/
>> /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>> /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>> /770.399.9099 - Office/
>> /770.392.0076 - Fax/
>> <image001.jpg>℠Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>> ^Conquering Complex Networks ^℠ ^
>> *From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]*On Behalf
>> Of*Roberts, Orin
>> *Sent:*Monday, November 27, 2017 3:59 PM
>> *To:*Andrew Bagrin <abagrin at omninet.io <mailto:abagrin at omninet.io>>
>> *Cc:*ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC
>> Validation Upon Reassignment
>> I see obstacles but increased fees would lead to greater efficiency in
>> IPv4 assignments and usage or at the very least aid in the migration
>> to IPv6.
>>
>>  1. Charging a monthly fee (or higher monthly fee), means increased
>>     costs to end-users for whatever services said company provides.
>>  2. ISP’s with VERY LARGE inventory of IPs would lobby against such a
>>     proposal. A typical ISP would have several /16’s in reservation -
>>     capacity planning.
>>  3. What’s to stop companies from doing what they do now? – Reassign
>>     or Reallocate unused inventory (ie trade and monetize via brokers).
>>
>> Orin Roberts
>> *From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]*On Behalf
>> Of*Andrew Bagrin
>> *Sent:*November-27-17 3:35 PM
>> *To:*Austin Murkland <austin.murkland at qscend.com
>> <mailto:austin.murkland at qscend.com>>; Andre Dalle <adalle at ncf.ca
>> <mailto:adalle at ncf.ca>>
>> *Cc:*ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC
>> Validation Upon Reassignment
>> I’d also like to see a $100 monthly fee per IPv4 /24 currently assigned.
>> I held onto a /16 at a previous company, just because it was cool but
>> had no use for it. I checked recently and it is still assigned to the
>> same company and not being used 15 years later.
>> By adding a $25k monthly fee, they would quickly return the block.
>> Currently we have to pay brokers or sellers to acquire more IPv4
>> space. I would rather pay ARIN which could go to better funding the
>> organization.
>> *From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>]*On Behalf Of*Austin Murkland
>> *Sent:*Monday, November 27, 2017 3:26 PM
>> *To:*Andre Dalle <adalle at ncf.ca <mailto:adalle at ncf.ca>>
>> *Cc:*ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC
>> Validation Upon Reassignment
>> Also support this
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Andre Dalle <adalle at ncf.ca
>> <mailto:adalle at ncf.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     All my IPv4 space is reassigned, and I discovered last year that
>>     not all of it - from the same carrier - is properly associated
>>     with us.
>>
>>     Upstream created a POC for us (even though we were an existing
>>     customer with multiple reassignments), and it's been sluggish
>>     getting them to
>>     sort it out. We have rDNS, so most abuse reporting still finds us,
>>     but some abuse mechanisms out there rely on POC info.
>>
>>     So I think this is necessary. +100 from here as well.
>>
>>     ----
>>     André Dalle
>>     Systems Administrator
>>     National Capital FreeNet [http://www.ncf.ca <http://www.ncf.ca/>]
>>
>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>     From: "Joe Provo" <ppml at rsuc.gweep.net <mailto:ppml at rsuc.gweep.net>>
>>     To: "ARIN-PPML List" <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
>>     Sent: Wednesday, 22 November, 2017 11:01:59
>>     Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New
>>     POC Validation Upon Reassignment
>>
>>     On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 06:13:46PM -0500, David Huberman wrote:
>>     > Thank you Scott. As the co-author, I very much recognize this
>>     > proposal text is a ???first draft???. Working with my co-author
>>     > Jason Schiller, and having solicited feedback from the AC, this
>>     > proposal was submitted to solve the general problem. My hope was
>>     > the mechanics would be looked at critically by the community during
>>     > the PDP, and we would work together to improve them.
>>
>>     With my personal hat on I'm very happy to see this getting
>>     to discussion. +100 for intent and I look forward to useful
>>     language suggestions here.
>>
>>     --
>>     Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
>>     Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PPML
>>     You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>     the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>>     <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>>     Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>     http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>     Please contactinfo at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>if you
>>     experience any issues.
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PPML
>>     You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>     the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>>     <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>>     Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>     http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>     Please contactinfo at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>if you
>>     experience any issues.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contactinfo at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>if you experience
>> any issues.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.