Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips
Stephen J. Wilcox
steve at telecomplete.co.uk
Tue Apr 15 21:21:51 UTC 2003
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 bdragon at gweep.net wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 bdragon at 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 have address space rescinded, including blocks not presently assigned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 be considered defunct, and the space rescinded.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
> As someone else mentioned, there should not be a MAX function on
> registry dues.
> > Steve
More information about the NANOG