Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Roger Marquis marquis at
Tue Apr 21 12:36:52 CDT 2009

John Curran wrote:
> A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take
>  action without the Internet community first making some policy
>  on what action should be taken...  Please get together with folks
>  of similar mind either via PPML or via Public Policy meeting at
>  the the Open Policy Bof, and then propose a policy accordingly.

Thanks for the reply John, but PPML has not worked to-date.  Too many
legacy interests willing and able to veto any such attempt at a sustainable
netblock return policy.  Not sure how us folks, of a similar mind as it
were, would be able to change that equation.  IMO this change has to come
from the top down.  Towards that goal can you give us any hint as to how to
effect that?

> B) Technical standards for NAT & NAPT are the IETF's job, not ARIN's.

Too true, but no reason ARIN could not be taking a more active role.  This
is after all, in ARIN's best interest, not the IETF's.

> C) We've routinely lowered fees since inception, not raised them.

Not raised since they were raised, granted.  Not raised for large
unnecessary allocations either.  Is that the job of the PPML as well?

What telecommunications consumers need here is leadership and direction.
What we see is, well, not what we are looking for.

Roger Marquis

More information about the NANOG mailing list