ARIN /8s ?

[Jeff Williams]

Stephen,

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> 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 may be changed, and even withdrawn.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 such assignments won't be withdrawn or changed without N months prior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 notice and that once an assignment is made, it won't be withdrawn or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.

  If the language is written in this manner, I think that there would
be quite an uproar.  Not to mention some Damage legal filings form
many diffrent sectors.  Won't fly!
> 
> >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.

  Shouldn't need to be a "GAME" at all.
> 
> 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

  Now you are talking!  Still there needs to be some additional
provisions
added to RFC2050.
> 
> 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.

  This would seem a wise and prudent requirnment.
> 
> 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.

  I doubt that this will ever be done, not to mention made public.  But
I must say, I agree with you.
> 
> >> 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.

  Renumbering should rarely be necessary.  An should avoided in any
way that can be made avalible.  This should also be part of the
shared responsibility of ARIN.InterNic in the manner of offering
some kind of assistance if necesssary.  Now, if an ISP is abusing
or not using the IP space it has allocated within the outline
provided in RFC2050, than that would be that ISP's responsibility
to rectify.
> 
> >randy
> 
> Stephen

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com