"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

Thu Feb 10 07:49:57 UTC 2011

On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Paul Vixie <vixie at isc.org> wrote:
>> David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> writes:
> 
>> whether either DEC or HP could have qualified for a /8 under current rules,
>> since the basis for these (pre-RIR) allocations was that they needed more
>> than a /16 and these were the days before CIDR.  (at the time i received
>> the /8 allocation at DEC, we had a half dozen /16's several dozen /24's that
> 
> With them not requiring a /8 in the first place (after CIDR);  one
> begins to wonder how much of
> their /8 allocations they actually touched in any meaningful way.
> 
> Perhaps the RIRs  should personally and directly  ask each /8  legacy
> holder to provide
> account of  their utilization  (which portions of the allocation is
> used, how many hosts),
> and  ASK  for each  unused   /22  [or shorter]  to be returned.
> 
> The legacy holders  might (or might not)  refuse.  They might (or
> might not)  tell the RIRs  "Hell no"
> In any case,  the  registry  should ASK   and   publish an  indication
> for each legacy /8 at least.
> 
That depends on whether you want honest answers from the
legacy holders or a blanket "We're using the space, move along,
these aren't the droids you're looking for."

If the RIRs are going to ask, they RIRs should be able to keep the
data and provide generalized statistics, or, at least each organization
should have the option of opting in to any identifying statistics.

Otherwise, you create an incredible motivation for organizations
to simply stonewall the RIRs and refuse to tell them anything.

> So the community will know which (if any)  legacy /8 holders are
> likely to be returning the community's
> IPv4 addresses  that they obtained but don't have need for.
> 
If they are inclined to return anything, the community will find out what
is returned soon enough. There's no real gain to this witch hunt
other than feeling like you put pressure on legacy holders to
do what you think is the right thing.

It may create some small amount of personal satisfaction, but, it
won't actually help get addresses freed up. In fact, I think it would
be counter-productive.

> The community should also know which /8  legacy holders say  "Hell no,
> we're keeping all our /8s,
> and not telling you how much of the community's IPv4 resources we're
> actually using".
> 
Yeah, this is a sure path to having all of them say exactly that in
unison. Do you want to be right? Or would you prefer to be effective?

Owen