nanog mailing list archives
RE: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters
From: "Lee Howard" <lee () asgard org>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:47:16 -0500
-----Original Message----- From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia () gmail com] The most important thing to ensure "usage" is recognized is that the entire address space is announced plus routed,
I don't speak on behalf of a community, but in the past there have been people reminding the ARIN community that there are valid uses for address space, contemplated by rfc2050, in addition to routing on the public Internet.
You might look into the option of signing the Legacy RSA: https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/ Available until Dec 2011; If your allocation predated ARIN.
Yes. You might decide you don't like some provision, but it would be careless not to look into it.
I doubt the community is going to scour through all the /24 allocations and try to reclaim them, however. It's not that legacy /24 allocations don't matter, if they are entirely derelict, but the /8s are the ones that "sort of" matter... sort of, because a /8 reclaimed could provide a few months of IP addresses for a RIR.
Agree; according to https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/index.html ARIN has been issuing 20,000 - 50,000 /24 per month for the past few months. A /24 wouldn't extend runout time by a full minute.
It's not likely but conceivable, that the RIRs could decide to make a policy of reviewing legacy resources and revoking allocations with bad contact info, or apply an "efficient usage" criterion requiring return/renumbering, for legacy resource holders who have no RSA.
That would be an exciting debate. Lee
Current thread:
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters, (continued)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Fred Baker (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Benson Schliesser (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Bill Woodcock (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Daniel Seagraves (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Jared Mauch (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Daniel Seagraves (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Jimmy Hess (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Jay Ashworth (Feb 04)
- RE: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Lee Howard (Feb 06)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Owen DeLong (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Daniel Seagraves (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Fred Baker (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Ralph J.Mayer (Feb 05)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Bill Woodcock (Feb 04)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Jared Mauch (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Sam Stickland (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Matthew Kaufman (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Mark Andrews (Feb 08)