Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...

[Shane Kerr shane@localhost]

Leo,

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:56:11AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> 
> On 10/07/2008 11:58, "Shane Kerr" shane@localhost wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says,
> > "I am using this address space", then take their space back. It's
> > not scary, really.
> >
> > Revokation is a good thing.
> 
> 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?

[ Warning: I should not be attempting to design process in a mailing
  list, but I can't help myself. :( ]

Fortunately there are no secrets in the routing table! So, it is easy
to see if any given space is being routed or not.

The only time there is a problem is if revoked space is still being
routed by someone.

If so, then there are reasonable actions that can be taken to stop
this, such as calling them and their peers and explaining the space
should no longer be routed.


Remember, the only thing that a PI address space holder needs to do is
sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the holder of this PI
space", so it should not cause any fuss.

Can someone come up with a scenario where this would be difficult or
impossible for some individual or organization?


Cheers,

--
Shane