[arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Wed May 29 17:45:57 EDT 2019
A lease policy should never exist in my opinion and registries should
stand strong against it for the simple reason that IPs are not assets or
something that belong to a company for it to lease.
Is it always necessary to remind that IP addresses are meant to be used
by the resource holders who justified for that ? If someone is leasing
it it obviously means it does not need and justify anymore for that IP
space and any RIR should recover them immediately. If such a policy
doesn't exist on its terms it should exist and should be discussed to
make it sooner.
I would recommend some Jon Postel reading to those who believe "it is Ok
to lease IPs" as if they were they very own asset as a router or a
server that you buy with a invoice and you do whatever you like with it.
This type of thing goes pretty much against concepts of conservation and
justification.
Imagine if someone asked a RIR more IP address and may justify as "I
need them in order to lease them". That's what a lease policy would walk
towards to.
As I mentioned in the other message, the fact the people do anyway and
the whois doesn't get updated is **less important** than having people
monetizing IP addresses in such way while there are others on waiting
lists that truly justify for those addresses.
Regards
Fernando
On 29/05/2019 18:02, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> The problem of leasing space before the 12 month waiting period, so as
> **only** to avoid that period, is small in my experience.
>
> After a year, any such lessor could sell if they wanted to, and they
> have the same sell/lease incentives as any other ARIN holder.
>
> Do you have evidence that people are monetizing waiting-list addresses
> prior to the 12 month period by leasing them?
>
> What you say below, however, is completely correct.
>
> I have tried to direct the community towards the glaring absence of a
> lease policy at any registry.
>
> I believe it’s time for such a policy, given the market circumstances
> we find ourselves in.
>
> Such a policy would allow for open leasing, with certain recording
> requirements for abuse contacts of the lessee, etc.
>
> I think such a policy would be in-scope and would yield, in a negative
> way, to the desired results of the anti-BGP hacking policy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> *From:* Robert Clarke <robert at rjfc.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:24 PM
> *To:* Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> *Cc:* Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>; arin-ppml
> <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after
> issuance
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> Why are you using John's "waiting list IPv4 blocks transferred"
> numbers as a baseline for the /19 numbers? This is completely
> arbitrary and doesn't give any scale as to the problem with fraud. See
> my earlier reply to John's email in the other thread:
>
> "Thanks for sharing. I'd like to note that it can be dangerous to use
> the blocks transferred via 8.2/8.3/9.4 as a metric for abuse. A
> fraudster that gets past ARIN's scrutiny and obtains IPs with
> fraudulent information is probably smart enough to lease their IPs as
> opposed to selling the space outright. There is a huge market for
> leased space, and those deals happen behind closed doors with no
> oversight from ARIN. IP addresses go for $0.2-0.5/mo depending on
> term/IP reputation/size which could lead to $XX,XXX in illicit revenue
> with no risk of ARIN's scrutiny which would normally occur during the
> transfer process."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert Clarke
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2019, at 8:13 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com
> <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Fernando,
>
> Thanks for the discussion.
>
> Many feel as you do, that unused addresses should be returned to
> ARIN for subsequent distribution to those in need.
>
> Unfortunately, that policy was not successful in bringing unused
> addresses into actual use by those in need.
>
> The community decided to harness the profit motive to incentive
> this process, and by all accounts it is working.
>
> Unfortunately the profit motive also incentivizes fraudulent
> plundering of the waiting list pool.
>
> So I am happy to discuss the correct balancing of things to
> prevent fraud but allow the market to continue to drive us towards
> the desirable ends of accurate registration and efficient use.
>
> Since the /19 is the threshold number of sorts for flipping, I
> could accept a /20 as the maximum size.
>
> I think a 2 year wait is reasonable, but I don’t see the
> additional benefit as worth the distinction of ARIN space into
> more classes.
>
> And making it more complicated with multiple waiting periods is
> even less desirable, IMO.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> *From:*ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>*On Behalf Of*Fernando Frediani
> *Sent:*Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:50 AM
> *To:*arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred
> after issuance
>
> On 29/05/2019 11:31, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Orgs will wait out any period, sitting with unused addresses
> until they reach the resale date. Not efficient use.
>
> If it's not a legacy resource and if ARIN gets to know about it,
> it may just recover this addresses even if the resource holder is
> paying it correctly. That's how it should work.
>
>
>
>
> People will lease unused addresses to others and Whois
> accuracy will suffer if they can’t resell them. Not accurate
> registration.
>
> If people lease they prove they have no use for the addresses and
> again ARIN should recover them at any time. If whois is
> inaccurate, well it is their fault and not policies fault. They
> must bind to the current rules not the other way round.
>
>
>
>
> I think we should give everybody currently on the list up to a
> /19 and then restrict new entries to a /22.
>
> Fair to discuss this scenario, although I still think /19 is too
> much. Agree on /22 for new entries.
>
>
> I think a 5 year resale wait is too long, based on the paltry
> resales of prior waiting-list subnets smaller than /19.
>
> It may be long, but 2 years seems a little short and 'acceptable'
> for a fraudster. Perhaps something in between.
>
>
>
> I support a /22 restriction for new entrants, a /19 max for
> current list members, and maintenance of the 12 month wait for
> simplicity’s sake.
>
> What about discuss /22 for new entrants, /20 for current list
> members and 36, 42 or 48 months for transfers ? Seems more
> reasonable in my view and cover most aspects of this discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> *From:*ARIN-PPML<arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>*On Behalf Of*Fernando Frediani
> *Sent:*Wednesday, May 29, 2019 8:51 AM
> *To:*arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred
> after issuance
>
> +1
>
> On 28/05/2019 23:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Yes and no. I believe that the lack of legacy holders for
> any blocks issued under 4.1.8 reduces the need for the market.
>
> Defunct organizations can easily be reclaimed in this
> space because they stop paying their ARIN bill.
>
> Eliminating the resale value of these addresses won’t
> really encourage squatting on them and limiting the size
> of organization and size of block that can benefit from
> 4.1.8 further helps to reduce the potential for hoarding.
>
> I realize that as a broker, any address that can’t be
> monetized is a lost opportunity for your organization, but
> I think there’s plenty of addresses out there that haven’t
> been processed through 4.1.8, so I don’t think limiting
> the resale potential of such blocks to reduce fraud is a
> bad idea.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 28, 2019, at 12:46 , Mike Burns
> <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote:
>
> The percentages of blocks transferred takes a
> significant leap at the /19 size.
>
> Below that, the percentages are all below 7%.
>
> At /19 and above, the percentages are all above 21%.
>
> Seems like a natural demarcation for maximum block
> size, but prices do continue to rise.
>
> While we want to fight fraud, we should still remember
> the underlying reasons for the Ipv4 transfer market
> apply to these addresses as well.
>
> That is, the market provides incentives for efficient
> use and accurate registration.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> *From:*ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>*On Behalf Of*John
> Curran
> *Sent:*Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:53 PM
> *To:*ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> *Subject:*[arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks
> transferred after issuance
> *Importance:*High
>
> Folks -
>
> It occurred to me that it might be useful to have a
> quick summary of waiting list blocks issued and
> subsequently transferred.
>
> Attached is the distribution (count per prefix size)
> of all blocks that have been issued via ARIN's waiting
> list policy and subsequently transferred via NRPM
> 8.2/8.3/8.4 policy.
>
> FYI,
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
>
> President and CEO
>
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
> <image001.png>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are
> subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contactinfo at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>if
> you experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> ARIN-PPML
>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> Please contactinfo at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
> experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190529/f63febc4/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list