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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sun Nov 3 18:36:53 EST 2019


That's the main point. If such thing would ever becomes normal I have no 
doubt it would create "internet landlords" and that's one of the reasons 
I consider leasing a total misuse of the IP address propose.
I see by the many different views of the questions and even from those 
who would be prepared to accept it, that there reservations and concerns 
so clearly there is something that 'doesn't look good' and is strange to 
the question.

There are already mechanisms to accommodate the needs of those who need 
more IP addresses, the need of newcomers even with some restrictions 
which has been working well since it was implemented and in my view 
leases only accomplish very specific the needs of a few mentioned.

Regards
Fernando

On 03/11/2019 19:56, scott wrote:
> IMHO, we should do everything we can to prevent "internet landlords." 
> Further, I do not see a legitimage use case problem that is solved by 
> allowing leasing that is not solved by upstream provided address 
> space, or barring that, 4.10 of the NRPM.  If we want to enable 
> spammers, attack networks, and other bad actors, then leasing is for 
> sure a great solution for them, and the "internet slumlords" that 
> would provide their resources.
>
> Scott
>
> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> $0.02
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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 if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191103/c3bc089e/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list