[ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2

On 23/02/2013 01:13, Randy Bush wrote:
> again, the owners may be quite happy with the data as they are.

yep.

>> Interesting.  So at the moment, it looks like between 30%-40% (i.e. from
>> (393+851)/4050 to (339+393+851)/4050) of the ERX address space is arguably
>> abandoned
> 
> from a measurement point of view 'arguably' may be the most important
> word in that sentence

what I said was: "it looks like between 30%-40% of the ERX address space is
arguably abandoned from the point of view of RIPE-DB maintainership -
although obviously not necessarily from other points of view".  I'm
certainly not saying that the address space is unused.

> unfortunately we have never come up with a method to classify space
> rigorously.  hard problem.  and i am not optimistic.  look at the recent
> noise about the uk gov /8 that looked unmaintained.

it was reasonably well known that this /8 was used internally within the
UK's public sector networks.  The only surprising thing about that noise
was that it happened at all, but I guess we all have a special love for
public display of moral outrage when it comes to bureaucracies.

I agree that classification is difficult, but I'd like to play around with
the data and see whether it throws up anything interesting.

Nick