[arin-ppml] Draft PolicyARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks (Ralph Sims)

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Tue Oct 1 17:31:10 EDT 2019


Re: "I threw a /24 back in The Swamp 20+ years ago, because it was right."

Maybe a long-term carpark would have been more useful in hindsight.
 I do not support this draft policy.
RD

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019, 16:15 <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to
>       Non-Connected Networks (Ralph Sims)
>    2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to
>       Non-Connected Networks (David Farmer)
>    3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to
>       Non-Connected Networks (Mike Burns)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 19:09:04 +0000
> From: Ralph Sims <ralphs at accelnet.net>
> To: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>, "arin-ppml at arin.net"
>         <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP
>         Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks
> Message-ID:
>         <
> MWHPR0401MB3691429FCD4C09706A7DAEF8A89D0 at MWHPR0401MB3691.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Due to our not knowing that ARIN recently changed its policy on allocating
> additional address space, we are unable to get a subnet to handle our
> growth (missed the cut off by 10 days).  We recently acquired a company
> that gets its space from another provider, but we need additional space to
> service its customers as well as for our own growth.  We have tried to be
> good ?citizens? in the past by not requesting more than we could justify at
> the time, but now it appears we have shot ourselves in the foot.  I threw a
> /24 back in The Swamp 20+ years ago, because it was right.  I don?t feel
> badly about that, however.  Now we are faced with considering using a
> broker to acquire the additional space as ARIN cannot meet our needs.  IPv6
> is good, but we are dealing with organizations that a) don?t have the
> expertise to manage it, or b) aren?t in the position to acquire new
> hardware and c) other considerations.  I?m not speaking of small outfits,
> but large organizations entrenched in the
>   v4 world?"years of tradition unhampered by progress?.  I don?t have a
> lot of hair to lose and going the ?educate the customer? route is getting
> old.  ?We can?t do v6 so we?ll look elsewhere for a provider that can give
> us the v4 space we need.?
>
> I think the current discussion is circular and may not lead towards a
> consensus.
>
>
>
> <snip>
> **unused space** - that's the term to look at.
> While there are plenty of organizations in the waiting list patiently
> waiting to get addresses they are able to justify there are others with
> unused space just willing to speculate them and rent totally bypassing the
> waiting list.
> Perhaps the community at some point may reach consensus on a specific
> policy to revoke these unused space from these organizations and put them
> back into the waiting list. It would certainly cost much less than having
> to pay for leases. No courts in the world where a contract is respected
> would object to such a policy.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191001/1cf20cdc/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:33:17 -0500
> From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> To: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP
>         Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAN-Dau3t1x33na0OVq+VX9xwsmXTJvWRTBQeix-bnxLKUWTc5A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:47 PM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > **unused space** - that's the term to look at.
> > While there are plenty of organizations in the waiting list patiently
> > waiting to get addresses they are able to justify there are others with
> > unused space just willing to speculate them and rent totally bypassing
> the
> > waiting list.
> > Perhaps the community at some point may reach consensus on a specific
> > policy to revoke these unused space from these organizations and put them
> > back into the waiting list. It would certainly cost much less than having
> > to pay for leases. No courts in the world where a contract is respected
> > would object to such a policy.
> >
>
> Address reclamation is non-starter it is never going to happen, get over
> it. We went with a market so we didn't have to have the fight of
> reclamation, you may not like the market, but it is a far better choice
> than reclamation.
>
> A market motivates and maybe even rewards people to increase the use of
> unused or under-used address space. Reclamation motivates people to fight
> the increased use of address space by fighting the reclamation. Hostile or
> forced reclamation of address space will cost far more than a market ever
> will. And would likely be much more unfair than the market.
>
> Why is reclamation unfair, because those with the financial resources to
> fight it, will fight it, and those without financial resources won't. It's
> unfair because it won't be about use of address space it will be about who
> has the financial resources to fight reclamation.
>
> Furthermore, the huge effort reclamation would take gets us no closer to
> IPv6, in fact if anything it moves us away from IPv6. At least with the
> market as the cost of IPv4 goes up the motivation to do IPv6 does also.
>
> Please stop arguing for reclamation, it is not a viable alternative.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191001/59deec57/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 16:14:45 -0400
> From: "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
> To: "'Ralph Sims'" <ralphs at accelnet.net>, "'Fernando Frediani'"
>         <fhfrediani at gmail.com>, <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP
>         Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks
> Message-ID: <02cd01d57894$de179cc0$9a46d640$@iptrading.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
>
>
> I threw a /21 back in the swamp myself and I think you are right about
> this discussion being circular. ?
>
> Yes, I voluntarily returned them. Wonder if that makes my arguments any
> better?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Ralph Sims
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 3:09 PM
> To: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment
> to Non-Connected Networks
>
>
>
> Due to our not knowing that ARIN recently changed its policy on allocating
> additional address space, we are unable to get a subnet to handle our
> growth (missed the cut off by 10 days).  We recently acquired a company
> that gets its space from another provider, but we need additional space to
> service its customers as well as for our own growth.  We have tried to be
> good ?citizens? in the past by not requesting more than we could justify at
> the time, but now it appears we have shot ourselves in the foot.  I threw a
> /24 back in The Swamp 20+ years ago, because it was right.  I don?t feel
> badly about that, however.  Now we are faced with considering using a
> broker to acquire the additional space as ARIN cannot meet our needs.  IPv6
> is good, but we are dealing with organizations that a) don?t have the
> expertise to manage it, or b) aren?t in the position to acquire new
> hardware and c) other considerations.  I?m not speaking of small outfits,
> but large organizations entrenched in the
>   v4 world?"years of tradition unhampered by progress?.  I don?t have a
> lot of hair to lose and going the ?educate the customer? route is getting
> old.  ?We can?t do v6 so we?ll look elsewhere for a provider that can give
> us the v4 space we need.?
>
>
>
> I think the current discussion is circular and may not lead towards a
> consensus.
>
>
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> **unused space** - that's the term to look at.
> While there are plenty of organizations in the waiting list patiently
> waiting to get addresses they are able to justify there are others with
> unused space just willing to speculate them and rent totally bypassing the
> waiting list.
> Perhaps the community at some point may reach consensus on a specific
> policy to revoke these unused space from these organizations and put them
> back into the waiting list. It would certainly cost much less than having
> to pay for leases. No courts in the world where a contract is respected
> would object to such a policy.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191001/0975ddc3/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 172, Issue 9
> *****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191001/79f3136d/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list