<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 13, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 5/13/2011 10:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">On May 13, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On 5/13/2011 8:38 AM, William Herrin wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:49 AM, ARIN<<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ARIN-prop-150 Reclamation Hold<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Proposal Originator: Matthew Kaufman<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Add a new section to the NRPM:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"All resources reclaimed by ARIN shall not be returned to the free pool<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">or otherwise reassigned to any entity than the original registrant for a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">period of 36 months."<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">LIRs are prevented from implementing this sort of policy since such<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">reserved addresses do not count towards their utilization. What<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">problems are solved by implementing this policy at an RIR level but<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">requiring LIRs to not implement the same?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">LIRs have direct circuit-level (or equivalent) relationships with the address users. RIRs do not.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Not necessarily true. As was pointed out in the opposition to my prop. 139<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">there are several instances of LIRs without circuit-level relationships.<br></blockquote><br>Yes, but even in those cases the agreements are much more specific.<br><br></div></blockquote>I find your omniscience about the nature of all of the various agreements out there</div><div>to be most interesting (and unlikely).</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">It would be very unusual for someone to have provider-assigned space and no ongoing contact or billing relationship with the provider, whereas legacy space in ARIN's database is exactly like that.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I can point to more than 100,000 users without a billing relationship that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">have address assignments from at least one provider, so, I don't think<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that is as unusual as you claim. Some of these users have just over 18<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">quintillion addresses, while others have 66,537 times that much or<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">even more.<br></blockquote><br>And do the terms of service they agreed to allow their provider to reclaim the address space from them immediately and give it to someone else? If so, fine. But that's not what legacy holders agreed to when they received their allocations.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm actually not sure. I would have to review our ToS.</div><div><br></div><div>Legacy holders agreed that their assignments were for a specific purpose</div><div>and that they should return those addresses when that purpose ended.</div><div>They also agreed that the addresses were not transferable other than</div><div>through merger/acquisition of the underlying infrastructure and addresses</div><div>together (as in acquiring the intended purpose in its entirety).</div><div><br></div><div>The unfortunate problem is that these were implied agreements among what</div><div>at the time was a cooperative and friendly community that operated largely</div><div>on handshakes without the formality of contracts or even real documentation</div><div>for the most part. It was a very different era in the internet and the current</div><div>state of affairs had not yet been envisioned or considered, so, we ended up</div><div>unprepared for it.</div><div><br></div><div>Frankly, ARIN does not reclaim address space "immediately" even today.</div><div>The spend time investigating and they attempt to reach the registered PoCs.</div><div>If those PoCs are responsive, ARIN spends considerable time working with</div><div>them to see if there is any identifiable way for them to keep the resources</div><div>within the ARIN policies. Only after that does a reclamation or revocation</div><div>begin.</div><div><br></div><div>Even then, reclaimed or revoked addresses enter a minimum 6-month</div><div>hold-down after they are reclaimed or revoked.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This provides sufficient time for the resources to go unused<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">prior to reassignment and/or to be re-justified by the original<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">registrant, or returned to the proper holder in the case of hijackings.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This could be solved with a much weaker requirement: "ARIN shall not<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">reallocate recovered address space while its status is under dispute<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">by a prior registrant."<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">How can the prior registrant initiate a dispute in time if they weren't aware of a hijacking and subsequent immediate reclaimation?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Arguably if they were not aware, then, they were not "using" their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">resources.<br></blockquote><br>They could very well be "using" their resources for exactly the sorts of things that were permitted when they received their space... like using them internally for a network that is not directly connected to the Internet at this time.<br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>That is actually still permitted. However, frankly, it's a corner case at best and is dealt with in the next paragraph:</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">However, if they have followed policy and kept their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">POCs up to date, the POCs would have been notified well<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">before the "immediate" reclamation which usually takes at least<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">6 months.<br></blockquote><br>If their POCs hadn't been changed without them knowing that. Or lost due to a DNS lapse that was exploited by the hijacker. Etc, etc.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>When you change a PoC, the original PoC is notified, so, if their PoC data was valid at the time it was changed, they know.</div><div>It would take a 3-day or longer DNS lapse for that to be the case.</div><div><br></div><div>Another safeguard that could be employed, of course, would be to sign the LRSA. Then, at the very least you would notice</div><div>when you stopped receiving a bill every year.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm sorry, but, if you have resources and you don't periodically monitor the state</div><div>of their contact information, then, you are not being a responsible resource holder</div><div>and I have a very limited amount of sympathy for you.</div><div><br></div><div>I certainly don't have enough sympathy to keep resources out of circulation for</div><div>three years waiting for you to miraculously and suddenly start paying attention.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>