[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Thu Nov 30 11:46:05 EST 2017
Private space is a valid use, as this is one of the only ways to ensure
uniqueness. Look at the US Postal Service as an example of this. They
have gobs of mail sorting machines on their class A, none of which is
exposed to the internet. Their public facing services are also in the
lower portion of this block, so they have both uses.
If you are not using it, and there are no future plans for it, is is quite
likely that the company will eventually be contacted by a broker regarding
the sale or lease of the space. I suspect that most of the contacts by
brokers are initially made by the broker, to those in charge of possible
space that might be available. Most of their work is trying to track down
possible available space. Without available space, the broker really does
not have a product to offer, since the buyer is the source of the money
for both the buyer and the broker's commission.
You are right that this is not likely the only available network. Even
so, we will never find enough IPv4 space to cover demand. As the
available blocks get smaller, it becomes an even more cost intense job.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, Andrew Bagrin wrote:
> The mythical space is 168.86.0.0/16 direct assignment NATIO-42
> https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-168-86-0-0-1/pft?s=168.86.1.1
> I got a hold of it when we acquire United Artists. They used it as private
> space.
> I just did a ping sweep and got no replies. Nothing on BGP dig either.
>
> I have a hard time believing they are the only ones.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> hostmaster at uneedus.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:08 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC
> Validation Upon Reassignment
>
> Unless the space is legacy, I do not see how space can remain open for 15
> years on autopilot, as someone must be paying the ARIN bill.
>
> Even under the original policies, review of use of IPv4 space only comes up
> in the context of requesting more space from ARIN. In light of the
> marketability of unused space, eventually someone from that org will
> eventually either use/lease/sell the space, and the tighter things go, the
> more likely this will happen. It is very unlikely anyone will just return
> the space, since it now has value.
>
> This has been discussed before. The amount of resources that would be
> required at ARIN to recover space from orgs that no longer exist far exceed
> the current value of the space recovered. The mythical class B we are
> discussing here is in fact getting quite rare, and the brokers are getting
> better at tracking these down and getting them back to use.
>
> In fact, it looks like the bulk of the legacy space with bad contacts are
> approaching the /22 to /24 level, not really worth the effort, considering
> that we all know the basic math is always against continued use of IPv4.
> That math being the simple fact that the total number of possible IPv4
> addresses is much less than the world population.
>
> At some point, we will pass a hump in IPv6 adoption, and this will drive us
> toward IPv6 becoming the main protocol on the worldwide internet. I think
> at that point, that will become the peak of IPv4 value. Once IPv6 becomes
> the main protocol, the value of IPv4 addresses will fall like a rock.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list