[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-139 No reassignment without networkservice

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:26 PM, George Bonser 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.
>> 
>> I did not draw the same conclusions as you did from the discussion a
>> couple of months back.
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> I just wonder how it would be enforced.  So if you have someone leasing
> legacy space, there would be nothing ARIN could do.  So that is one way
> around it.  In the case of using ARIN allocated space, even if one did
> not have a network connection to the lessee, the LIR would still need to
> maintain utilization requirements (for v4).  But creating a network
> relationship is as easy as giving someone a dialup modem login; it is
> still easy to get around.
> 
It's not clear that ARIN could do nothing about it in the legacy case.
That's an untested assertion. I would argue that ARIN could treat that
as an unauthorized transfer indicating that the rightful holder had
abandoned the resources and reclaim them in that case.

If they're providing a dialup connect (_AND_ routing packets to
the destination via that dialup connection), then, I don't see that
as circumventing the intent of the policy.

> Is the spririt of what you are saying that not only does the end user
> require a network connection with the provider that also the traffic
> must be routed through the provider with the LIR having the most
> specific routing announcement for that leased block?  I believe that the
> spirit of what you are trying to say is that the LIR have a network
> relationship meaning that the LIR is actually a provider of significant
> services for the block being allocated.  I just don't see a good way to
> enforce that.  I have a couple of blocks from one provider that I don't
> announce to them.  I do maintain a relationship with them but only a
> small connection.
> 
If they have a network connection but aren't routing packets across it,
then, they are not providing network services to the customer.

I think that specifying the most specific advertisement gets sticky and
over-reaching. I agree it's a little bit of a loophole, but, I'd rather have
a couple of loopholes left than accidentally over-constrain legitimate
use.

As to "significant", that gets sticky in terms of defining significant.

I think we often focus too much on whether policy is enforceable.
I would argue that since we are a community which depends
heavily on voluntary compliance, that as long as the policy clearly
expresses the will and general intent of the community, the ability
to exactly enforce that intent in all cases is not as important.

> The point being that I wonder what this language is going to solve.  If
> you are giving out IP address space, I guess you now need to buy a modem
> and give your customers the phone number.

Primarily, as staff has stated their current actions, their actions are
not entirely in line with current policy wording. Since I think their
actions are generally correct, I am proposing to realign the policy
to match their current actions rather than the other way around
as some would seek to do.

Owen