Can we please take this rat-hole out of the policy discussion and move it to an appropriate list? Fees are _NOT_ the purview of the PPML or the ARIN PDP.
Owen > On Nov 30, 2017, at 08:51 , Andrew Bagrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's why a suggested a fee, to make that space find us instead of us > finding it. > I can see this is not really of interest and the bigger interest is to > launch v6 and forget about v4, so I'll stick to the plan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:46 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Andrew Bagrin <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC > Validation Upon Reassignment > > Private space is a valid use, as this is one of the only ways to ensure > uniqueness. Look at the US Postal Service as an example of this. They have > gobs of mail sorting machines on their class A, none of which is exposed to > the internet. Their public facing services are also in the lower portion of > this block, so they have both uses. > > If you are not using it, and there are no future plans for it, is is quite > likely that the company will eventually be contacted by a broker regarding > the sale or lease of the space. I suspect that most of the contacts by > brokers are initially made by the broker, to those in charge of possible > space that might be available. Most of their work is trying to track down > possible available space. Without available space, the broker really does > not have a product to offer, since the buyer is the source of the money for > both the buyer and the broker's commission. > > You are right that this is not likely the only available network. Even so, > we will never find enough IPv4 space to cover demand. As the available > blocks get smaller, it becomes an even more cost intense job. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, Andrew Bagrin wrote: > >> The mythical space is 168.86.0.0/16 direct assignment NATIO-42 >> https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-168-86-0-0-1/pft?s=168.86.1.1 >> I got a hold of it when we acquire United Artists. They used it as >> private space. >> I just did a ping sweep and got no replies. Nothing on BGP dig either. >> >> I have a hard time believing they are the only ones. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:08 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC >> Validation Upon Reassignment >> >> 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
