ARIN /8s ?

[Stephen Sprunk]

At 20:50 29-06-97 PDT, you wrote:
>> I suggest that ARIN say (as I believe it does) that addresses assignements
>> may be changed, and even withdrawn.  In addition, ARIN should say that
>> such assignments won't be withdrawn or changed without N months prior
>> notice and that once an assignment is made, it won't be withdrawn or
>> changed except after a minimum of one year.  And ARIN should require that
>> these provisions be imposed as part of any sub-delegation/assignment.
>
>Thank you for a constructive suggestion.   Do you have wording you would
>suggest be at the bottom of an application for allocation that would make
>this clear?

I'm sure ARIN has/will have plenty of lawyers that will be happy to write
the fine print legalese for you, but the content will end up like this:

ARIN/RIPE/APNIC reserves the right to invalidate any IP lease at any time,
with or without prior notice, with or without the lessee's consent.

>What about the criteria which might cause withdrawal or change?  These would
>seem to need spelling out to make the game 'fair' and not have surprises.

I'll throw in a few suggestions:

. Not advertised on the public internet for 30 days (unless it is a documented
  case of necessary private use; a specific block for this perhaps?)
. Advertised by a different AS than the one it is allocated to, without an
  approved transfer
. Periodic analysis of usage reveals that RFC 2050 requirements are not met

If an IP lease is invalidated for either of the latter two reasons there
should be a new lease of an appropriate number of IPs to the appropriate
party, with an appropriate conversion period.

Of course, all this assumes that ARIN is going to make an effort to reclaim
leases (either those made prior to or after its formation), which has never
been publicly stated.

I would also like proof ARIN/InterNIC has done any detailed analysis of the
Big ISPs' allocations and their use which would justify the MASSIVE amounts
of IP space allocated to them.

>> That's pretty close to the way most real property leases work, and no one
>> who receives a delegation could realistically (I hope) complain that such
>> terms are too onerous.
>
>Uh, given the current weak renumbering technology, getting space and losing
>it a year or so later would seem onerous if one had not done something to
>'deserve' it.

Our entire network, including all servers, could be renumbered in 24 hours;
those with customers are obviously in a different boat, but one would think
that a business with a substantial number of commercial users wouldn't need
to renumber.

>randy

Stephen