"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
jcurran at arin.net
Thu Feb 10 18:07:52 CST 2011
On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:13 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> 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.
I've done close: contacted each one, explained the situation, and asked
for whatever resources they can return to please return. This has yielded
results. I have not asked for an account of their utilization.
> 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.
I asked them all. Some have been returned, some are in progress, some
are opted to hold them to be monetized via the Specified Transfer policy.
> 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.
There is likely to be another fractional /8 being returned, but not
> 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".
As I did not explain in advance to each to the parties that their responses
would be public, it would not be proper to publicly post the information.
Discussions with individual resource holders is treated as confidential
President and CEO
More information about the NANOG