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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Nov 4 01:59:01 EST 2019

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 14:28 , Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:30 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto: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. 

I do not want to see policy that allows someone to come to ARIN and say “I want to buy a /16 from X and my need is that I wish to lease it to Y (or A..Q or whatever).

I don’t mind if an organization that already has address space wishes to lease it with or without connectivity. That seems perfectly valid to me.

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

How do you evaluate a justification that consists of “I want to buy 4 /8s and then lease them as /24s. I expect to have enough customers to lease at least 2 /8s worth over the next 24 months.”?

My issue with the idea of transfers to people intending to become IPv4 landlords is that I believe it is much harder to distinguish a business plan for being a lessor from fiction than it is to make the same evaluation against a network operator who has to possess at least some tangible operational equipment, etc. I think such a policy invites relatively large scale fraud using an even simpler process than what was used in the recent waiting list scams.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191103/49826c6f/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list