[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Sun Nov 3 17:28:25 EST 2019

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:30 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

[ clip ]

However, what I do not want to see is a situation where we permit the
> desire to lease space as a justification for obtaining space through the
> transfer market (or
> any other mechanism). If you want to leas space you already have, then
> fine. But the desire to lease space in and of itself should not qualify as
> “utilization” or
> “need” in evaluation of any form of resource request.

Needs a little more clarify for me. Either the lessor or lessee has a right
to use the numbers as justification? The lessee may be the logical party,
but seems less likely to be in the transfer market. However, if they are
leasing numbers they may have legitimate need. On the other hand, if a
lessor has a ratio like an ISP or other provider using numbers in an
aggregated manner _and_ the lessee can't use the lease as justification for
transfers, that would seem to be inline with current practice. I do think
legitimately "in use" addresses should be eligible for "need" credit. Isn't
the idea that "access" is being facilitated by providing the numbers? You
can use RFC 1918 address space as a justification for need and the numbers
are technically "not connected". I'm thinking source nor business model
should matter, but that we're careful who is getting credit for them. Just
saying that made me wonder if this is even worth addressing.

Feels like it is more sensible to allow the both to demonstrate use as a
justification and let ARIN process sort it out.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191103/149a6bbe/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list