North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips

  • From: Stephen J. Wilcox
  • Date: Tue Apr 15 17:24:11 2003


On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 bdragon@gweep.net wrote:

> 
> > On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 bdragon@gweep.net wrote:
> > > 
> > > > More importantly, a quick study in logic shows there should be no
> > > > requirement for the existing space to meet RFC2050 requirements -- the space
> > > > is already allocated.  After the renumbering period there's no net damage to
> > > > the IPv4 "shortage" since similar amounts of space would be assigned, but it
> > > > would be a great help to the global routing system.
> > > 
> > > The problem is that PA space is questionable. As you stated, if the only way
> > > to do something one wants to do is to lie/cheat/steal/kill, many people
> > > will do it.
> > 
> > Can you quote an example of someone who was killed in the name of PA space?
> 
> Can you state with certainty that no one has been killed? (We could certainly
> go around that point circularly for awhile). I know I've wanted to kill
> some of my customers, even if I haven't actually followed through with it.

no .. you win!
 
> in any event, I'll assume you accept the illustrative point by only
> taking on the severity of what people will stoop to.
> 
> > > Some of the "P" in the PA will break the rules in order to drive sales.
> > > So, the inherent assumption that a provider is already compliant is
> > > not a given, which strikes down the argument.
> > > 
> > > I'ld advocate for mandatory compliance checking on each allocation
> > > request or biannually, whichever is more frequent. Of course,
> > > I'ld also advocate that it a provider is below 25% usage, that they
> > > have address space rescinded, including blocks not presently assigned
> > 
> > even where over-allocation is concerned you cant seriously expect folks to 
> > renumber in order to give space back. renumbering has to be a no-no.
> 
> Why not?

you've not done this then i assume?

> > > to any RIR. If an entity can not be contacted for 2 compliance
> > > periods (for example, a swamp /24 to some long-dead company) that they
> > > be considered defunct, and the space rescinded.
> > 
> > i assume dead space is recovered anyway? surely the provider isnt providing 
> > space and services to a company that is dead and not paying bills?
> 
> what provider? a swamp /24 would have been allocated by InterNIC
> along with your single domain name. The domains, by virtue of a periodic
> reregistration process, are cleaned up. The swamp space isn't (yet).

if its a direct allocation from arin then you have membership fees, if they 
arent paid surely thats an indication theres a problem?

if its some sort of pre-arin stuff then we've jumped off-thread.

> > > But, then again, I'm fairly liberal. I'm sure the more conservative
> > 
> > liberal compared to stalin maybe ;p
> > 
> > > among us (and those hanging onto former customer /24s, /8s, etc)
> > > would absolutely hate this, since they are getting something for nothing
> > > and don't like having to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
> > 
> > you have a slightly different point here, i agree. theres a number of legacy /8s 
> > out there, they need fixing. i dont have any answers tho!
> 
> As well as /16s, and /24s. A periodic communication of some kind is
> really needed to cull out the silent lost. Similarly those who are
> so far out of whack from the rest of us due to fortunate circumstance
> should be brought to something approaching in-line.

hmm, if its dead then presumably you could achieve this by watching the routing 
table over a period of a few months and considering blocks older than a couple 
of years that are consistently not appearing to be dead and automatically 
reusable maybe?

Steve

> As someone else mentioned, there should not be a MAX function on
> registry dues.
> 
> > Steve
> 
>