[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Thu Nov 30 13:03:11 EST 2017
Can we please take this rat-hole out of the policy discussion and move it to
an appropriate list? Fees are _NOT_ the purview of the PPML or the ARIN PDP.
Owen
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 08:51 , Andrew Bagrin <abagrin at omninet.io> wrote:
>
> That's why a suggested a fee, to make that space find us instead of us
> finding it.
> I can see this is not really of interest and the bigger interest is to
> launch v6 and forget about v4, so I'll stick to the plan.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hostmaster at uneedus.com [mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:46 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Cc: Andrew Bagrin <abagrin at omninet.io>
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC
> Validation Upon Reassignment
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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