<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>My
concern with this embryonic proposal is as follows:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>1) If
it worked it would merely add fragmented blocks back into the IPv4 pool,
thus</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>increasing the BGP route entries when those were
reassigned.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008></SPAN><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>2) You
and I both have proposals in process to attempt to get a handle on the
amount</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>of
abandonded IPv4 by verifying the POCs. I would prefer to allow those to
mature and</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>(hopefully) be added to the NRPM first, and I think it is unwise for you,
particularly, to</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>get
involved in pushing another controversial proposal until the dust has settled on
the</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>first.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>3)
Morally I do not think ARIN or the community has the right to press holders
for</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>unabandonded, unused IPv4 until ARIN can prove to the community's
satisfaction</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>that
it has collected up abandoned IPv4. I personally have a subnet on my list
that</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I know
for a fact is abandonded, and I have provided ARIN with the
documentation</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>to
prove it i's abandonded, several years ago, yet the subnet has not been absorbed
into</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>the
free pool. I would strenuously object to ARIN bugging me about possibly
unused</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>numbers we have in our allocated block, while doing nothing about a block
I know</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>is
abandonded, and have the documentation to prove is
abandonded.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>4) I
feel this proposal diverts from energy spent on work to get IPv6 online
and</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>routed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=676534519-27102008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Ted</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Chris Grundemann<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 27, 2008 11:53
AM<BR><B>To:</B> ARIN PPML<BR><B>Subject:</B> [arin-ppml] The Library Book
Approach to IPv4 Scarcity<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>This is (yet another) a policy
that may help us ease away from IPv4, maintain contact between ARIN and it's
members and maybe even avoid a transfer market. I have been kicking the
general idea around for over six months and it has recently matured with input
from some very intelligent folks. I do not want to associate them with
this particular idea unwittingly so I won't name them here but I would like to
thank them here anonymously - thank you. It is not an official proposal
yet as I fear that there won't be much support for it. If you do think
that this is a good idea or at least on the right track, please let me know -
on or off list. I don't want to bang my head against the wall too long
if I am alone. Also, if you hate it, think I am crazy or just don't
think it will work, I would love to hear why. Although many have
influenced it, this is my work and my opinion alone and does not represent the
views of any organization or individuals I may be affiliated with.
((IMHO))<BR>Thank you,<BR>~Chris<BR><BR><BR>== Potential Proposal:<BR><BR>Once
every 12months each holder of IPv4 addresses is required to fully document
their IP utilization and demonstrate that the current utilization standard for
IPv4 assignments and allocations is being met. This shall include all
currently held IPv4 space, regardless of origin or registration
status.<BR><BR>A fee shall be assessed for underutilization or insufficient
documentation.<BR><BR> * The fee for one 12m period shall be
waived if the address holder returns a contiguous block of IPv4 space equal to
at least 1/256th of currently held space and no less than one /24 (class C
equivalent) to ARINs free pool.<BR> * The fee for one 12m
period shall be waived if the address holder signs an ARIN RSA for any
uncontested and unregistered IPv4 space, this waiver shall be restricted to
one use per member organization.<BR><BR><BR>== Rationale:<BR><BR>IP space (v4,
v6, vX) is a public resource and as such should be borrowed, used and returned
by those with a need for it. Think of IPv4 prefixes like library books
(another finite public resource): When you check out a book, you are expected
to return it on a certain date. If that date comes and you are still actively
using the book, you are allowed to state that and keep the book. Since we are
at a point now where IPv4 space is recognizably finite, it makes sense to
implement a similar policy at the RIR(s) - that is a time frame. This policy
would require that after X amount of time, the LIR/EU would need to return to
the RIR with justification if they wish to keep the space. The burden should
be on the LIR/EU to prove that they are actively using the
space.<BR><BR><BR>== Some thoughts:<BR><BR>1) This policy should be part of a
comprehensive plan including:<BR>- A policy to identify abandoned space<BR>- A
policy to reclaim abandoned space<BR>- A policy to restrict some (if not all)
IPv4 space allocations/assignments to new entrants deploying IPv6<BR>- A
continuing increase in utilization requirements<BR><BR>2) I do worry that some
(perhaps many) will try to game the system by exaggerating or falsifying
'proof' of efficient utilization. At the same time I think that having that
caveat will make this much easier for most to swallow and hopefully accept
than a similar proposal which assessed the fee to all holders of IPv4 space
regardless of utilization. The idea (hope) is that as IPv4 becomes more and
more scarce, the community will raise the utilization requirements to include
things like NAT and IPv6. This would provide a constant pressure on all
community members to become more efficient in their IPv4 use which in turn
should help keep some addresses free for new entrants. This is the opposite
effect of an unrestricted market based approach which would encourage large
holders of addresses to hold more and more IPv4, to store value and bar new
competition.<BR><BR>3) I am not sure what the fee should be or if it should be
spelled out in policy, this is probably something that ARIN staff should set
and be able to change when needed. Perhaps the policy should define simply how
the fee is assessed, ie: per IP or per % underutilized, etc. It may also be
helpful or necessary to add a statement in the policy requiring any proceeds
from these fees to be used for something in particular (legacy outreach, IPv6
promotion, payment/credit to orgs with utilization above the efficiency
requirement, etc).<BR><BR>4) I expect that some (possibly many) organizations
will find it easier to simply return some space than even trouble themselves
with trying to justify their current holdings. This will be especially true of
organizations which hold large amounts of space.<BR><BR>5) I am expecting that
bringing resources under an ARIN RSA may be easier and less painful for
organizations which already hold other RSA covered space than a full IP audit
or returning space. Under this assumption the final sentence has two
goals:<BR>A) To help incent organizations to secure legacy space in any
existing or inevitable grey/black market early on (and get it over with). If
there are no back-room deals for exchange of legacy space now or in the
future, than this is not an issue and can be ignored, this policy will have no
affect in this area.<BR>B) To get any transfered legacy IPv4 space (see point
A) under an RSA so that we are all playing on the same field by the same
rules. I think if everyone had a more similar role in the game we might work
together better. I will note however that legacy holders with no RSA
covered space have no increased incentive to sign an RSA under this proposal
then they do today (and no increased risk in not signing one).<BR><BR>6) I
originally considered a period of 24 months but shortened it to 12 months
considering the rapid approach of IANA free pool exhaustion; 24 months will be
far to long of an interval to have a significant impact on IPv4
availability.<BR><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Chris Grundemann<BR><A
href="http://www.chrisgrundemann.com"
target=_blank>www.chrisgrundemann.com</A><BR><A
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/cgrundemann"
target=_blank>www.linkedin.com/in/cgrundemann</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>