[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-139 No reassignment without network service

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

> On 4/8/2011 12:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I disagree with you about the problems RIPE has experienced and I also don't feel that this measure
>> is draconian at all. It merely requires that LIRs in the ARIN region be providing network services to
>> the customers that they also provide address resources to.
> 
> So rather than simply requiring that everyone play by the rules, the best solution is to simply say that if you're not providing connectivity you can't reassign?  Can you define connectivity in a meaningful way?  T-1?  Ethernet?  Serial link?  How about a GRE or IP-IP tunnel?  56Kbps leased line?  How would ARIN even know if connectivity is being provided or not?  Not everyone who is multi-homed is announced via BGP, even though they should not everyone does.
> 
I would consider all of those legitimate.

The route isn't reachable if it isn't advertised, at least at the aggregate level.

The trick would be evaluating network connectivity services that are not internet connectivity
services.

I think, in general, the thing to look for would be address ranges advertised by an ASN not
related to the assigning provider without a corresponding advertisement from the assigning
provider.

>> I did not draw the same conclusions as you did from the discussion a couple of months back.
> 
> Fair enough.  Do find what my company has done to be objectionable?  This the block from post in February about our practices.
> 
I don't find it objectionable, but, I do find it no longer necessary given recent
ARIN policy changes. (I had reread that block before commenting when you
first posted the link earlier in the discussion).

Owen

> So what do you think of what we do today, and have for over 5 years,
> which is reassign or reallocate space to ISPs we are not providing a
> connection to in order for smaller providers to gain access to portable
> address space?  We started doing this to help ISPs that don't qualify in
> some way (hard to be multi-homed in areas without more than one
> provider) or don't want to deal with ARIN.  You could say we are a
> corner case and most of the customers that leverage this service from us
> are smaller (often in rural) retail ISPs, which ARIN seems to be
> recognizing have different needs from their larger brethren.  I'd also
> point out that we push the same requirements down to those ISPs that
> ARIN places on us and frankly our ability to accurately assess
> utilization is _much_ better than ARIN's because in most of these cases
> we're also helping take care of the network infrastructure.  That was
> the other reason we started leasing space, we were spending too much
> time renumbering networks for ISPs that were desperate to obtain lower
> cost Internet connectivity.
>>