[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

[Scott Leibrand]

If we have restrictions that are unenforced and routinely ignored, those
restrictions need to be removed (or enforced). To do otherwise creates an
environment where everyone is always in violation of the "letter of the
law", thereby reducing respect for the restrictions that we do want to
enforce. It puts at a disadvantage those who attempt to read and follow the
rules without having a tacit understanding of which rules are "really"
enforced. It also leaves open the possibility that the enforcing entity may
decide to start enforcing rules that were previously unenforced, perhaps
even in a capricious, corrupt, or otherwise less-than-ideal manner.

For all of those reasons, we need to ensure that our rules reflect what we
actually want ARIN to try to enforce. IMO the current policy requiring only
a VPN tunnel or unused switch port as a fig leaf to allow address leasing
is untenable and needs to be changed. I favor changing it by updating the
policy to reflect that address leasing is allowed, and what the
requirements should be.

-Scott

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 2:23 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
wrote:

> In message <30dbfe0c-f444-ec1c-54ad-62460ab5643f at egh.com>,
> John Santos <john at egh.com> wrote:
>
> >The proposal specifically relates to leasing IP addresses to recipients
> >who are NOT receiving connectivity from the lessor.
>
> As I said, I myself have no position on the proposal under discussion.
>
> As a general matter however, I have for many years now been concerned
> about the promulgation, within the various structures of Internet
> governance, of rules which, following adoption, are then rather trivially
> circumvented by parties having neither a care for nor a respect for the
> intent of the rules in question.
>
> For that reason, I do believe that it might be helpful to the discussion
> of the proposal if the alternatives were made completely clear.
>
> You've said that the status quo permits leasing in conjunction with
> connectivity.  But how is "connectivity" defined in this context,
> exactly?
>
> If you are a "provider" and I am your client, may you lease me IP addresses
> even if the IP addresses you lease me are ones that I get connectivity to
> from some -different- provider?
>
> Perhaps even more importantly, if leasing IP addresses in conjunction with
> "connectivity", however that term is currently defined, is currently A-OK,
> but leasing addresses NOT in conjunction with "connectivity" is currently
> prohibited, then who is enforcing that existing prohibition, how effective
> is the enforcement, and what are some recent examples of such enforcement?
>
> If in fact there is no actual enforcement of what I infer must be a current
> standing prohibition on leasing NOT in conjunction with connectivity, then
> what is the point of wasting time debating here the lifting of this
> prohibition, a prohibition which has no significance in actual practice
> anyway?
>
> Where I live, spitting on the sidewalk is illegal, but that law is never
> enforced, in practice, and thus I frequently see people spitting on the
> sidewalk.
>
> Given this context, I am not moved to passionately argue either for or
> against the repeal of our local anti-spitting ordinance, and would
> perfer instead to devote my time to more meaningful endeavors.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191101/dc0770e5/attachment.htm>