Unless the space is legacy, I do not see how space can remain open for 15
years on autopilot, as someone must be paying the ARIN bill.
Even under the original policies, review of use of IPv4 space only comes
up in the context of requesting more space from ARIN. In light of the
marketability of unused space, eventually someone from that org will
eventually either use/lease/sell the space, and the tighter things go, the
more likely this will happen. It is very unlikely anyone will just return
the space, since it now has value.
This has been discussed before. The amount of resources that would be
required at ARIN to recover space from orgs that no longer exist far
exceed the current value of the space recovered. The mythical class B we
are discussing here is in fact getting quite rare, and the brokers are
getting better at tracking these down and getting them back to use.
In fact, it looks like the bulk of the legacy space with bad contacts are
approaching the /22 to /24 level, not really worth the effort, considering
that we all know the basic math is always against continued use of IPv4.
That math being the simple fact that the total number of possible IPv4
addresses is much less than the world population.
At some point, we will pass a hump in IPv6 adoption, and this will drive
us toward IPv6 becoming the main protocol on the worldwide internet. I
think at that point, that will become the peak of IPv4 value. Once IPv6
becomes the main protocol, the value of IPv4 addresses will fall like a
rock.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
And I will point out that the entire point of validating POCs is to discover
things like /16's that haven't been used for 15 years.
It would seem to me that ARIN staff vacillates between loving and hating
section 3.6 of the NRPM. Some years they see any attempt at
housecleaning stale assignments that are just on autopilot (like this
mythical /16 - I love how when people cite these examples they never
state the actual numbers - hello!) as an obstacle to increased IPv6
adoption so they hate it and undercut it. Other years they desperately
need to get some IPv4 for someone very big and powerful with maybe a
whole lot of guns and rocket launchers and such and they love this
section since it allows them to scrape together some IPv4 for a need.
Ted
On 11/27/2017 4:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Before we travel too far down this branch of discussion, I’d like to
point out that fees are not within the realm of ARIN policy debate and
therefore aren’t really an appropriate topic for this list.
If you’d like to discuss such a fee, there is arin-discuss (open to
Members/Staff/Board/AC) where fee discussions are appropriate.
Alternatively, there is also the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion
Process (ACSP) available via the Participate tab on the ARIN web site.
Thanks,
Owen
On Nov 27, 2017, at 13:08 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
I don’t see how you can go back and start charging Legacy holders that
obtained their blocks before ARIN was created. You would have to
charge big companies like AT&T & IBM and you would have to somehow
charge the Dept. of Defense and so forth to make it fair to everyone.
Seems like that ship sailed long ago.
/Steven Ryerse/
/President/
/100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
/770.656.1460 - Cell/
/770.399.9099 - Office/
/770.392.0076 - Fax/
<image001.jpg>℠Eclipse Networks, Inc.
^Conquering Complex Networks ^℠ ^
*From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]]*On Behalf
Of*Roberts, Orin
*Sent:*Monday, November 27, 2017 3:59 PM
*To:*Andrew Bagrin <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:*ARIN-PPML List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC
Validation Upon Reassignment
I see obstacles but increased fees would lead to greater efficiency in
IPv4 assignments and usage or at the very least aid in the migration
to IPv6.
1. Charging a monthly fee (or higher monthly fee), means increased
costs to end-users for whatever services said company provides.
2. ISP’s with VERY LARGE inventory of IPs would lobby against such a
proposal. A typical ISP would have several /16’s in reservation -
capacity planning.
3. What’s to stop companies from doing what they do now? – Reassign
or Reallocate unused inventory (ie trade and monetize via brokers).
Orin Roberts
*From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]]*On Behalf
Of*Andrew Bagrin
*Sent:*November-27-17 3:35 PM
*To:*Austin Murkland <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Andre Dalle <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:*ARIN-PPML List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC
Validation Upon Reassignment
I’d also like to see a $100 monthly fee per IPv4 /24 currently assigned.
I held onto a /16 at a previous company, just because it was cool but
had no use for it. I checked recently and it is still assigned to the
same company and not being used 15 years later.
By adding a $25k monthly fee, they would quickly return the block.
Currently we have to pay brokers or sellers to acquire more IPv4
space. I would rather pay ARIN which could go to better funding the
organization.
*From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]*On Behalf Of*Austin Murkland
*Sent:*Monday, November 27, 2017 3:26 PM
*To:*Andre Dalle <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:*ARIN-PPML List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC
Validation Upon Reassignment
Also support this
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Andre Dalle <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
All my IPv4 space is reassigned, and I discovered last year that
not all of it - from the same carrier - is properly associated
with us.
Upstream created a POC for us (even though we were an existing
customer with multiple reassignments), and it's been sluggish
getting them to
sort it out. We have rDNS, so most abuse reporting still finds us,
but some abuse mechanisms out there rely on POC info.
So I think this is necessary. +100 from here as well.
----
André Dalle
Systems Administrator
National Capital FreeNet [http://www.ncf.ca <http://www.ncf.ca/>]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Provo" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "ARIN-PPML List" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 November, 2017 11:01:59
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New
POC Validation Upon Reassignment
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 06:13:46PM -0500, David Huberman wrote:
> Thank you Scott. As the co-author, I very much recognize this
> proposal text is a ???first draft???. Working with my co-author
> Jason Schiller, and having solicited feedback from the AC, this
> proposal was submitted to solve the general problem. My hope was
> the mechanics would be looked at critically by the community during
> the PDP, and we would work together to improve them.
With my personal hat on I'm very happy to see this getting
to discussion. +100 for intent and I look forward to useful
language suggestions here.
--
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>if you
experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>if you
experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>if you experience
any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
