[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 21:28:01 EST 2019


On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 20:52 scott <scott at solarnetone.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Bootp, AAA, dhcp? MSO, MNO? Been happening for a long time already.
>
> pardon, we are talking about leasing to someone not operating a network,
> hence the "non-connected systems in the draft title".
> nobody has a problem with upstream provided addresses via a standard dhcp
> "lease".



The point was landlords have always been here. This is nothing new.
Speaking of air gaps. SIPRNet?

> Admittedly, this is a twist. However, its a cost saving measure for those
> > who need it and have a real use.
>
> How is this cheaper than addresses provided by upstream?  Granted, it can
> be costly to roll your own routing infrastructure on addresses allocated
> to you from the RIR, particularly if you don't have the technical chops to
> do it yourself.  That said, you are going to have to announce your
> "leased" address space somehow anyway.
>

Tried getting a /24 from a paid upstream lately?

As long as the addresses are used in a network legitimately, I’m good. We
should define only who gets credit for use. Maybe.

Best,

-M<



> > Cost wise, its effective. While I agree
> > the business model may be less desired to some, the outcome is legit.
> >
> > The question could be about accurate tallying of utilization.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > -M<
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 17:58 scott <scott at solarnetone.org> 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<
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >       >
> >
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191103/28614eaa/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list