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

[Brian Jones]

See inline.
—
Brian Jones
NIS Virginia Tech


On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:41 PM Jim <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:00 PM John Santos <john at egh.com> wrote:
>
> I am opposed to proposal that ARIN should in general be facilitating
> entities
> being able to obtain from ARIN   permanent allocations made to
> support  temporary use for non-connected networks.    It sounds like
> creating an inviting environment for potential spammers and fraud, and
> LIRs/ISPs should not be involved in this.
>

+1 The above. I am all for the wait list for those who "need" resources and
may not be able to afford them on the transfer market. I also have evidence
of address resources allocated out of other RIR's (non-ARIN) being used for
nefarious purposes here in the states. The entities they are registered to
seem to pay little attention to any abuse complaints, so sometime entire
blocks of addresses get black listed, blocked, or otherwise ACL'led from
most legitimate network providers. The transfer market opens up a lane for
this activity.



>
> I would suggest a stance that IPv6 should be used for any new non-
> connected networks being created And applicants be required to prove
> that they have adequate justification for why they have existing IPv4 usage
> and it is not possible to meet their unique  Non-Connected networking
> needs using IPv6 space  and  technology such as 464XLAT, and why
> it is also impractical to meet their requirement using RFC1918 space.
>
> If someone's use is so transient as to merit leasing,  then perhaps ARIN
> could consider offering a process for providing a  90-day allocation
> from a block reserved for transient allocations for experimental use
>

Not a bad idea...



> > Someone needs to define "Non-Connected Network".  I take it to mean "a
> > network that is not connected to the Global Internet."  I.E. a private
>
> Yes...  Non-Connected = A standalone IP network, or it might be part of
> a confederation of  interconnected networks,   but they choose: for
> whatever reason  to not be globally reachable directly over the IP
> protocol.
>
> If the Non-connected network is truly standalone,  then RFC1918 space
> should be adequate.
>
+1. If it is truly standalone they technically could use "any" IPv4 space
they wanted to... Not recommended, but just saying.



>
>
>
> ---
> -Jimmy
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191001/2c7b7400/attachment.htm>