Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips

>
> > 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.

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 have address space rescinded, including blocks not presently assigned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?

> 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 be considered defunct, and the space rescinded.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).

> 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.

As someone else mentioned, there should not be a MAX function on
registry dues.

> >
> > > 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
reusable maybe?

Steve