[arin-ppml] "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 2/3/2011 1:21 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>
>> As long as number resources are being put to productive use, and
>> the whois database is kept up-to-date with regards to who's
>> actually using the space, I'd be hesitant to try to micromanage the
>> arrangements between consenting parties...
>
> I agree with this.  Unless something is broken, ARIN has enough to do
> without attempting to enforce philosophical positions.
>
> The thing is that allocations from ARIN are based on the conditions
> that existed at the time the resources were allocated.  Say someone
> qualified for a /16 and got it, then used it for a number of years
> but 15 years later find their business has shrunk and they aren't
> using all of that allocation anymore.  Now they certainly wouldn't
> qualify for a new allocation but I am not aware of any policy (not
> saying one doesn't exist, just saying that I am not aware of any)
> that requires a regular audit and periodic re-justification of issued
> resources.
>

There never was a need for one.  The reason why is that those unused
addresses are costing that someone a lot of money, if his business has
shrunk then he doesn't have the cash flow anymore to pay the fees.

As long as addresses were given out on request the market value
of IPv4 was effectively $0.00 so nobody would pay anyone to lease
anything.

The economic of it changes a lot post-runout.

It's going to change enormously during the REAL IPv4 endgame.  What
people are calling "IPv4 endgame" right now really isn't.  It's
more of an "IPv4-for-the-asking endgame"

The REAL IPv4 endgame is when significant numbers of customers on
the Internet don't NEED IPv4 anymore - but rather it's a "nice to have"
but at the same time a significant number of customers on the
Internet desperately need IPv4.

That is when large pressure builds to lease out IPv4.  If an IPv4
holder sees for example that the actual end of IPv4 is 5 years out,
yet right now can move 25% of his existing IPv4 customers to IPv6,
why then he can take that freed IPv4 and lease it to someone else
who can't move any of their customers to IPv4 right now.  It's a
great deal for him because he is in the situation of a competitor
of his is paying him for themselves becoming less and less competitive 
as the years pass.

Ted

> One might easily have a few scattered /24 nets within a larger
> allocation that they don't plan to use for a while.  Those now become
> a potential source of revenue.  I see nothing wrong or "dishonest"
> with allowing someone else to use such a block provided the network
> leasing the space legitimately qualifies for the space and isn't
> simply some "snowshoe" spammer looking to churn through address
> space.  There comes the rub but it is really no different than the
> situation today.  I would guess that most of the IP address leasing
> today (noting exceptions mentioned in this thread) are people who for
> one reason or another either wouldn't qualify for a direct allocation
> or don't want to go through the paperwork.  That will change after
> runout to include people who *do* qualify for more space but it isn't
> available.
>
> So the bottom line is that I don't believe the problem will get worse
> than it currently is because as it stands today the majority of the
> people "leasing" IP address resources are people who wouldn't get it
> otherwise.  After runout that percentage will change and most of the
> leasing would be from people who are just fine but can't get the
> resources otherwise.  The "bad guys" are already doing it.  This
> proposal would just make it harder for the "good guys" after runout.
>
> _______________________________________________ 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact
> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>