[arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARINInter-RIRTransfers - Last Call

[Owen DeLong]

Sure, if we allow anything there will be corner cases.

Since the park scenario you describe is, also, a perfectly legitimate use of address space if the person actually intends to operate a community park wireless network, I'm not sure how you can expect to prevent such activity without also blocking legitimate activity.

I think caution is warranted, but I also believe that ARIN policy must permit all legitimate uses while precluding as many invalid uses as possible rather than prevent all invalid uses while permitting as many legitimate uses as possible.

Owen


Sent from my iPad

On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:42 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:16 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 2011, at 8:44 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> So to summarize: I would find it difficult to be a repeat offender,
>>> but as long as I dot my i's cross my t's and content myself with just
>>> one grab, draft policy 2011-1 as presently written would enable me to
>>> buy a Lexus by raiding the free pool and more or less immediately
>>> selling the results out-region... to someone with no access to a free
>>> pool operating under a much more permissive needs-based justification
>>> than ARIN requires. And with little risk: at worst really just the
>>> loss of the $4500 allocation fee.
>> 
>> If you follow through on using the assigned resources as
>> specified on the request, then no resource fraud would be
>> found.
> 
> Just in case there's anyone entertaining the idea that, "This isn't a
> concern because no one with 50,000 smartphone customers would risk our
> wrath," here's an alternate play that's strictly fly-by-night.
> 
> Stand up 16 legal entities, 1 each named after nearby public parks.
> Install a solar-powered wifi hotspot at each park and backhaul them
> (wirelessly of course) to two additional entities designed to be
> BGP-speaking backhauls. I'm such a nice guy, I'll even make the park
> wifi free to park patrons. While it's running anyway; reliability
> isn't my priority.
> 
> For this modest investment, each of the 16 entities is now multihomed
> and, as each park could easily host 150 wifi clients, can justify a
> /24. Acquire addresses from the ARIN free pool and configure them on
> the equipment. Drive around and make sure each site logs enough users
> at least once to justify the full /24. I now hold 16 /24's and
> documentation which fulfills my justified use obligation.
> 
> Sell them outregion to an entity that can't get /24's locally and
> meets it's local RIR's nominal needs-based justification. Initiate
> specified recipient transfers per 2011-1.
> 
> Upon completion of the transfer (including the ARIN audits in which
> the documentation shows fulfillment of all the use justification thus
> no fraud) tear down the wifi hotspots and terminate the organizations
> created for them.
> 
> Stand up 16 more legal entities, named after a set of shopping mall
> food courts. Rinse and repeat.
> 
> At $5/address this is not practical, but if addresses go for $20 each
> this grosses $82k on an investment around $40k with a 3ish month
> turnaround. So, double your money in three months with a by-the-book
> raid on the ARIN free pool. And I'm sure this could be refined further
> to either cut the cost or increase the block size from /24 so that
> even at $5/address you could come out ahead.
> 
> 
>> Note also that this potential
>> concern exists in the existing NRPM 8.3 policy with respect
>> to in-region transfers.
> 
> Without draft 2011-1 it does me limited good to acquire these
> addresses. Any transferee will be in the ARIN region where they have
> the same access I do to the remaining free pool and have to meet the
> same justified use criteria that I do in order to receive addresses
> either from the free pool or from me. I present the transferee no
> value as a middleman.
> 
> 
> Note that the board recognized the related-legal-entities issue a few
> years ago, but IIRC they abandoned their attempt to address it,
> possibly for lack of a usable legal framework. No joy to be found down
> that blind alley and I imagine the prevailing view was that with a
> strong needs justification applied independently to each legal entity
> there was relatively little damage that could be done.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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.