[arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Wed May 29 21:48:23 EDT 2019

Hello Bill and folks.

This doesn't need to be complicated. There is plenty of legitimate ways 
to assign IP space to end-users and customers that are perfectly valid 
and nobody is disputing it.
The scenario that matters to us is when a ASN leases its own IP space to 
be announced by another given this last one has the ability and should 
get them directly from the RIR. I can't see any scenario that justifies 
that other than go around the system and pass in front of others paying 
for it. An ASN received IP space to assign to other scenarios different 
from this, not to lease to someone other ASN announce pretending the 
first one is a RIR.

When an ISP assigns IP to end-users in a broadband connection, a hosted 
server, a P2P circuit even to bring a BGP session up or even to provide 
a Out-of-Band connectivity to another ISP it is doing no more than what 
is meant to be done with the IPs the RIR has assigned to him. For me is 
very clear the difference between all these scenarios (and others) and 
the one mentioned above.


On 29/05/2019 22:27, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:02 PM Fernando Frediani 
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Yeah, if someone is leasing IP addresses means that he (the resource 
> holder) doesn't have use for them anymore.
> Hi Fernando,
> To be clear, that would be a major change in ARIN policy. To date, all 
> ARIN policy operates under the presumption that following the initial 
> justified use for IP addresses, the resource holder is free to 
> repurpose them in any manner desired. The holder need only justify 
> that use again upon requesting additional resources from ARIN, and 
> must then only demonstrate that his use meets ARIN requirements, not 
> that it was used as originally envisioned.
> Also understand that ALL provision of Internet service which includes 
> even the ephemeral exclusive use of an IP address includes the lease 
> of that address. Try to draw a distinction between leasing just the 
> address versus providing service and you'll very quickly find yourself 
> falling down the rabbit hole. Do you have to provide IP transit with 
> the lease? What if you provide transit but the customer doesn't use 
> it, he uses the transit he buys from someone else? Is that good 
> enough? What if the address lease is 24/7 but the transit is not (e.g. 
> dialup)? What if the customer goes months without using the transit? 
> And do you mean to tell me that all a registrant has to do to make his 
> address lease kosher is offer the renter a 56k dialup along with it?
> Sure, we can set a requirement that you can't lease addresses without 
> providing transit. But that's such a ridiculously low bar to meet it's 
> not worth wasting ARIN staff resources to evaluate it. Unless we make 
> it such a high bar to meet that it actually impedes ordinary Internet 
> business. Which would be even worse.
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> -- 
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>
> https://bill.herrin.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190529/ef616c9b/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list