[arin-ppml] "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )
Note: moved this to the ARIN PPML list from NANOG.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform
> in the presence of such activity ("leasing" IP addresses by ISP not providing
> connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply
> be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent
> transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is
> set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful.
1. Whatever arrangements work out in the market are fine, including leasing.
Pros: Noninterference. Let's the market do its thing.
Cons: Contrary to the needs basis we've adhered to for the last 20
years. The the end user needs the addresses enough to pay the price
and the lessor can spare them then obviously the end user needs those
addresses, not the lessor.
2. Address leasing is not allowed. Must get your addresses from a
primary or at least major bandwidth provider. Addresses found to be
leased or provided in with a paper-tiger transit arrangement are
subject to reclamation by ARIN.
Pros: Keeps the market more or less honest. IP addresses are a public
resource; they don't belong to you. As incentive to put your uneeded
addresses back into the supply, you're allowed to sell them at
market... but you don't get to be like the landlords of Europe that
prompted the 19th century emigration to the Americas, refusing to sell
to the folks living on the land at any price.
3. Any multihomed registrant using an ARIN AS number and SWIPed for at
least one year with a /24 or larger is entitled to convert the
registration to an ARIN direct assignment upon filing the proper
paperwork. Refusing SWIP or assigning addresses out of region is
grounds for reclamation.
Pros: Lets the original registrant earn his money but guarantees that
address assignments will move towards the multihomed end users.
Cons: Fragmentation. No way to ever move growing entities from
individual /24's to aggregable address blocks. Have to hope the IPv6
migration solves this problem before it can get serious. Also, it
implies a change in ISP's internal routing management. These new
registrations are functionally different from older direct
registrations - they'll likely still be subject to some ISP's covering
route, even though they're no longer used with that ISP.
Any other sensible ways to slice and dice the issue?
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004