Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

[Nick Hilliard nick@localhost]

> You're opening up a huge can of worms here.
Aye, surely.

10 years ago, a survey was done on the 192/8 swamp, and it was estimated 
that even at that stage, 60% of the registrations were uncontactable.  I 
can't see how thing would have got better in the interim, but does this 
mean that we officially declare this space lost?
Whatever about reclaiming blocks previously assigned, what about blocks 
assigned in the future?  Are we also going to commit right now to losing 
these blocks if they are unused, or are we going to attempt to fix the 
issue?
I mean, there's a massive problem here.  Losing IP space to posterity 
just because we can't be bothered to put policies in place to deal with 
the issue is frankly rather unwise.
> 'Getting back IPs' means 
> contacting peers and upstreams and telling these parties to stop 
> accepting the announcement from the non-paying company.  If the company 
> is still paying bills to their upstreams, do you think upstreams will 
> take kindly to this action ?
> The RIPE NCC deleting the inetnum object doesn't mean the addresses stop 
> routing ...
The RIPE NCC is not the routing police; it's a registration 
clearing-house.  LIR's pay money to guarantee that the address space 
blocks they are allocated are globally unique.  It's up to carriers to 
ensure that their customers' announcements are legitimate.
Anyway, this is getting seriously off topic for 2006-05.

Nick