[arin-ppml] "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )
gbonser at seven.com
Fri Feb 4 14:38:09 EST 2011
> Hi George,
> ARIN has always enforced a philosophical position:
By philosophical I meant the notion that leasing IPs was somehow
"dishonest" or would be more "dishonest" after runout than it is today.
> IP addresses go to those with justified technical need.
> IP addresses are not property.
Wouldn't the use of one's IP space by someone else actually improve the
assignee's usage ratio? That can be thought of as in improvement in
> Address leasing without ARIN in the loop holds the prospect of
> demolishing those principles.
Ok, why moreso after runout than now? If someone doesn't qualify for
addresses from ARIN today, they might "lease" them from someone else.
After runout, more people wanting to lease space will be people who
would qualify for IP space but it isn't available. In other words, the
proportion of "bad guys" to "good guys" in the mix will change.
> far more so than paid address transfers
> with the recipient explicitly evaluated by ARIN. At least with the
> transfers the "legal fiction" is relatively close to the reality: that
> you're paying someone the one time cost of altering his network to
> consume fewer addresses. What fiction for leasing meets those two
Mantra: "It doesn't matter. V4 is dead."
More of the people leasing addresses will be people who legitimately
qualify for the space. The problem will become smaller after runout
than it is today in a relative sense. So you toss someone a $150/month
circuit that you never use in order to get a /24 SWIPed to you or you
just pay them $150/month and do without the circuit you never use,
what's the difference?
I just don't see where there is a problem. It seems that some just
don't like the notion of someone "leasing" IP space.
More information about the ARIN-PPML