[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-0002.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list