[address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marshall Eubanks
tme at multicasttech.com
Mon Jul 14 20:16:22 CEST 2008
On Jul 14, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On 14/07/2008 6:36, "Nick Hilliard" <nick at inex.ie> wrote: > >> Leo Vegoda wrote: >>> What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space >>> assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should >>> they >>> allocate or assign the address space to other network operators? >> >> Phone companies reassign telephone numbers all the time, and people >> don't >> get terribly upset by the idea of it. > > I'm sure that's covered in the contracts their customers sign. Also, > phone > companies tend not to reassign numbers to which they continue to > provide a > service. If the phone company called me up and said, "we are changing your phone number starting August 1, have a nice day," I would get pretty upset, and I know a lot of businesses that would get upset. I dare say that some would sue. If, however, I don't pay the phone bill, eventually the number would be reassigned, and that does happen all of the time. That is a much closer analogy to revoked address assignments, and I don't think that they would be a problem to reuse them. It would be reasonable to have a Oldest-Revocation-First queue policy (so that blocks are not immediately reassigned), to provide a margin for the possibility of revocations in error, people who change their minds, etc. I also believe that the phone company does something similar to that. If a company goes out of business, it takes a while before the number gets assigned to someone else. Regards Marshall > > > The RIPE NCC isn't the phone company and its main service is > registration, > not voice calls. It's a service that many registrants may not > realise they > receive or benefit from. So while the concept of revoking unused > resources > is attractive, the practicality of it is awkward. > >> Is there a serious problem with >> revocation? Re-using scarce resources is something that's going to >> happen, >> regardless of 2007-01. > > Of course there will be all sorts of re-use and 'hijacking'. I > suspect that > a simple transfer policy is the least painful way of minimising the > problem. > Experience shows that top-down reclamation activities are difficult > and > slow. > > Regards, > > Leo >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]