Re: DNS Changer items

[TJ <trejrco () gmail com>]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:

> In a message written on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:46:52AM +0100, Stephen
> Wilcox wrote:
> >
> https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/clarification-on-reallocated-ipv4-address-space-related-to-dutch-police-order
>
> From the article:
>
> ] The address space was quarantined for six weeks before being returned to
> ] the RIPE NCC's available pool of IPv4 address space. It was then
> ] randomly reallocated to a new resource holder according to normal
> ] allocation procedures.
> ]
> ] As the RIPE NCC nears IPv4 exhaustion, it will reduce the quarantine
> ] period of returned address space accordingly to ensure that there is no
> ] more IPv4 address space available before the last /8 is reached. The
> ] RIPE NCC recognises that this shortened quarantine could lead to
> ] routability problems and offers its members assistance to reduce this.
>
> While I understand that in the face of IPv4 exhaustion long quarantine
> periods are probably no longer a good idea, I think 6 weeks is
> shockingly short.  I also think to blanket apply the quarantine is
> a little short sighted, there are cases that need a longer cooling
> off period, and this may be one of them.
>
> I think the RIPE membership, and indeed the policy making bodies
> of all RIR's should look at their re-allocation policies with this
> case in mind and see if a corner case like this doesn't present a
> surprising result.



Correct me if I am wrong, but with RIPE's pool nearing exhaustion (in as
little as 3 weeks, depending upon who you ask and how you count) isn't this
sort of a moot point?  I suppose this block could have been moved to the
back of the list instead of randomly re-allocated, but would a few more
weeks really have helped?


/TJ