On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> wrote:
David Conrad <drc@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