Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

[Marshall Eubanks tme@localhost]

On Jul 14, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On 14/07/2008 6:36, "Nick Hilliard" nick@localhost 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