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

[Benson Schliesser]

On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:27 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> IP addresses go to those with justified technical need.
> IP addresses are not property.
> 
> Address leasing without ARIN in the loop holds the prospect of
> demolishing those principles, far more so than paid address transfers
> with the recipient explicitly evaluated by ARIN. 

For addresses that were allocated by ARIN, an organization sub-allocating addresses to their customers is required to follow the philosophically-inspired "justified need" policy.  Basically, that organization has the delegated responsibility to enforce ARIN policy.  I don't think there are any new problems caused by address leasing, that being the case.

More fundamentally, the business relationship shouldn't matter as long as the policy is enforced.  The "traditional" mechanism of sub-allocation might provide addresses as part of a network service.  But that's not a requirement.  Why not lease addresses as a component of some consulting service? Or as a bonus for buying a box of donuts?  Why would anybody care, as long as the "justified need" policy is enforced?

Cheers,
-Benson