FYI,
/John
i think this is cool, but ...
ARIN will follow global policy at that time and return it to the
global free pool or distribute the space to those organizations in the
ARIN region with documented need, as appropriate.
i know the us has the world series, but global > arin region
randy
The problem is that we haven't been able to get a global policy
for returned address space, i.e. IANA has no policy on how to
assign less than full /8's. The first global policy 2009-3 did
not reach consensus on the same text in all regions, and 2010-10
is still under discussion.
So, there's no way to know if there's a global policy which would
allow the space to be returned to the IANA, but I'm optimistic...
/John
ARIN will follow global policy at that time and return it to the
global free pool or distribute the space to those organizations in the
ARIN region with documented need, as appropriate.i know the us has the world series, but global > arin region
The problem is that we haven't been able to get a global policy
for returned address space, i.e. IANA has no policy on how to
assign less than full /8's. The first global policy 2009-3 did
not reach consensus on the same text in all regions, and 2010-10
is still under discussion.So, there's no way to know if there's a global policy which would
allow the space to be returned to the IANA, but I'm optimistic...
ahh. my problem. lack of coffee. i missed the "OR." sorry.
i would guess iana would take it.
randy
Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism.
John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address space was returned to ARIN?
Nick
Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple of them) that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great.
Thank you interop for setting the example.
Joel
INTEROP is retaining 2 /16 blocks for existing usage;
i.e. more than 99% of the /8 block is being returned.
To the extent that parties have unused address space
beyond their usage and foreseeable need, we encourage
them to return the space so it may be reissued to
those parties with need. This is in keeping with
global policies on Internet address space management.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
[John, is 45.127.0.0/16 one of the two blocks they keep, or is it
hijacked already? 
]
Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple of them)
that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great.
The problem with that is indeed in that little part about "aren't using
them", if even only 50% is in use because one allocated it quite
sparsely you won't be able to quickly clean it up and return it.
Thank you interop for setting the example.
For delaying the inevitable by what, a month!?
It is indeed really great that they took the effort to do so, but then
again, they where not always using this prefix, only during events, thus
it must have been quite empty. The fact that RIPE's RIS hasn't even seen
the prefix announced ever says enough about that part.
Doesn't mean it is not being used by other parties though:
45.127.0.0/16 13767 DBANK - DataBank Holdings, Ltd. 2009-04-10
15:43:59 UTC 2010-10-20 14:11:43 UTC
One can of course wonder if they are supposed to use that or not.
The fact that they do not have reverse DNS delegation for it says quite
a bit already of course.
Maybe that is one of the two /16's that they are keeping to themselves,
seems to be used that way for over a year already. I assume L(3) did
proper checking.
Greets,
Jeroen
less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate.
it's nice that interop did a nice thing here, but seriously, this is
~3 months of usage... there is no saving the move to v6, the bottom's
going to fall out on or about june 2011 it seems.
Not to be depressing, but a /8 (or 99% of one 
is potentially less
than one month's drain on the global IPv4 free pool, if one considers
the allocations over the last 12 months to be predictive.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
I agree with Chris; this (and any other returns) won't change the IPv4
depletion/IPv6 deployment timeline substantially, but it's also true
we have folks who are just now realizing IPv4 depletion is happening
and returned address space may make the difference for those who need
just a bit more time...
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN
region drain rate.
The problem with that is indeed in that little part about "aren't using
them", if even only 50% is in use because one allocated it quite
sparsely you won't be able to quickly clean it up and return it.
Correct. It might make sense to do so, if you could recover the costs of
the work involved. This is the reasoning behind the Specified Transfer
policy that was recently adopted; it allows (once we're at depletion) for
parties to free up address space and get compensated. It's goal is not to
provide a windfall for those holding unused space; in theory, those with
unused address space should be returning it already if they can easily do
so.
One can of course wonder if they are supposed to use that or not.
The fact that they do not have reverse DNS delegation for it says quite
a bit already of course.
One of the other benefits of improved utilization for returned space
is less space which is "sitting idle" and available to be hijacked.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
Ah, good point. It may end up in the global pool, so comparison to
either drain rate is quite reasonable.
/John
Christopher Morrow wrote:
Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple of them) that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great.
Thank you interop for setting the example.
Sure, it would be a nice gesture if MIT/HP/Ford/Xerox/Halliburton/etc gave back the chunks of the /8s they weren't using, but it wouldn't significantly affect when the IPv4 well runs dry. Also, without knowing how those organizations have used the space internally, such an altruistic gesture could also come at the cost of having to de-aggregate a bunch of advertisements in BGP.
The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
jms
I don't think ARIN (or any other RIR) wants people to think this way.
Appreciation and value are words that most folks at ICANN don't want network engineers to associate with IP addresses.
"The real value is in routing"; is the party line.
STLS to me is kind of double speak, ARIN says: "this isn't a capital resource", but yet if you go through us and list your 'unused' blocks in this space, we don't care what financial transaction happens behind the scenes.
Maybe John can shed more light on this.
For some background, go over to the Internet-history mailing list, which included a very lively discussion of "ownership interest" in IP addresses.
Ernie
I don't think ARIN (or any other RIR) wants people to think this way.
Ernie - ARIN doesn't have a view on how people should think. It
does have an interest in making sure that number resources policies
that are adopted by community are followed.
STLS to me is kind of double speak, ARIN says: "this isn't a capital resource", but yet if you go through us and list your 'unused' blocks in this space, we don't care what financial transaction happens behind the scenes.
Maybe John can shed more light on this.
Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS) is a service, not
a policy. You don't need to use the STLS to make use of the
Specified Transfer policy.
The Specified Transfer policy lets parties to free up address
space (that might not otherwise be available) and then arrange
transfer to another party. Given that a lot of IPv4 address
space may be readily available given a little work to renumber,
it was felt to be a reasonable compromise in encouraging better
utilization once we've run out of the IP4 free pool. Parties
which receive under the specified transfer policy still must meet
all of the normal address allocation requirements, including
documented need.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
So would it be more logical for all those willing to return do so only after depletion when the impact and resulting appreciation is likely to be greater?
It would be best for folks who can return address space
to do so as soon as possible, since that space could then
be made available under existing allocation policies. It
is likely that there are many organizations which would
qualify under current need-based policy which may not have
any meaningful chance to receive address space post-depletion.
Plus, those less altruistic could weigh the options better after real value is associated with the scarce resource.
Parties that could return space now and are holding it
entirely to profiteer are not envisioned in RFC 2050.
ARIN recognizes that such parties could use the specified
transfer policy to receive compensation despite being able
to return the space, but overall the community recommended
proceeding because the benefit to overall utilization was
deemed worthwhile.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN