[arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

Mike Burns mike at iptrading.com
Thu May 30 11:24:38 EDT 2019

Hi Scott,


I will draft something very simple to start, but I don’t know if it’s section 4, 8, or somewhere else.

What do you suggest?


I wonder if we could say that ARIN would have the right to see the LOA if there was an abuse complaint filed?


There is a field for origin AS in a detailed SWIP… Maybe it can be utilized to designate the LOA recipient?










From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:27 AM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy


The portion that would be within scope as ARIN policy would be any requirements to publish reassignment information in the ARIN database. However, we would need further discussion on whether/how such requirements would be enforceable: for example, are there any grounds for eventually revoking improperly registered reassignments of IP space?

Routing is outside ARIN’s purview, so probably the best we can do there is document what kind of information is expected to be provided in an LOA, and how that interacts with any reassignment information published to ARIN. We might want to do something like require registration of the fact that space is reassigned, including things like start and expected end date of the reassignment, even if the identity of the assignee is kept confidential. That way anyone validating an LOA can at least verify that the space to be routed is reassigned to someone, and hasn’t been revoked. Or you could provide a public-key field in the public reassignment record, so that the LOA could include a private-key signature that allows for validation of its validity without having to publish the info it contains. (This starts to sound like a form of RPKI.)


On May 30, 2019, at 7:01 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:

Hi Scott,


I would draft a policy in order to foster discussion, but I’m not sure I would approve it myself yet.

The concept would benefit from more discussion; it’s half-baked.


Can I get assurance that a lease policy would be within our scope as policymakers from a person better positioned to make the call?





From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 1:23 AM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> >
Cc: arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> >
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy


On May 29, 2019, at 5:13 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:


Hi Scott and Fernando,


Thank you for the change of subject and the discussion.


For the present, we should have a policy that recognizes legitimate leasing types (LOA, VPN) and requires the same sorts of assignment and delegation records commonly done by ISPs for their customers.

It should recognize that blocks can be legitimately advertised under un-related ASNs with a valid Letter of Authorization, which must contain certain information.

It could have a process for identifying ARIN members who are participating in a lease policy violation, for notifying them, and for potentially punishing them under RSA terms.


I would support such a policy. Would you be interested in drafting it?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190530/50a019e3/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list