[anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources

In message <CAArzuosa4zGis9B64Ky8OTh6Wc1EM+qxcqTZYgCsL3=U_3FBEw at mail.gmail.com>
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

>And I would be very interested to see just how much v6 space they have.
>
>Ron - noticed some?

Only a tiny amount.  I'm sorry, but I can't talk about that just yet.

>And please don't even tell me there's enough v6 space for everybody so we
>needn't worry about IP allocation at all, that is what we all thought back
>when class A, B and C addresses were being handed out, so we might as well
>learn from our past experience as from anything else.

Although I appreciate the responses from both Suresh and also Gert Doering
to my question about whether or not any policy exists allowing RIPE NCC 
to reclaim IPv4 space that is being squandered, both replies seem to start
from the assmption that the proper way to judge whether a robust reclamation
policy is warranted or not is to perform a simple cost/benefit analysis,
where the "cost" aspect is _only_ that some IPv4 (or IPv6) address space is
wasted and not available for other uses.

Personally, I think that this view is too narrow, and I am frankly a bit
surprised to find such a view prevalent on and within the mailing list
of a purported "anti abuse" working group.

Does the charter of this group include, or conversely, fail to include
that the group can, should, and will advocate for the denial of resources
_generally_ to those who abuse the Internet?

And additionally, is conservation of (precious?) number resources the only
rationale that might ever be the basis for reclamation actions with respect
to said resources?

Both here and within the ARIN region, discussions of the abuse of number
resources always seem to devolve down to religious arguments about the
value of IPv4 versus IPv6... and I see now that I am as much to blame for
that as anybody, because I have often raised the issue of IPv4 exhaustion
in the hopes that it might motivate people to care more, at least about
cases of clear abuse of IPv4 address resources.  But it occurs to me now
this really misses the true issue.  If I were to find a great big snowshoe
spamming operation that was operating strictly and only from within IPv6
address space, would I want its IPv6 address allocation revoked?  You bet
I would!  So also, I would hope, would everyone else on this list and in
this "anti abuse" working group.


Regards,
rfg