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

[David Farmer]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:50 AM Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Should we make 2019-18 clearly say that reallocation or reassignment to
> non-connected networks who will themselves make operational use of the
> leased addresses is considered efficient use? Basically, keep the “use”
> requirement around reassignments the same as it is now, and just state
> clearly that non-connected reassignments are ok?
>
> Scott
>

I support language like this, but I do not support removal of the "use"
requirement, someone has to be using the addresses, if not there is no
basis for an assignment or allocation, or reassignment or reallocation.

Furthermore, RFC2008 introduced the address lending model, and this has
been the primary model of acquiring address space for regular users ever
since. RFC2008 does expects the relationship to be more than just for
address space, it expects connectivity is being provided as well.
Furthermore, that the address will be returned when the connectivity
ceases.  However, the reason for this is aggregation, if the user of the
address space isn't connected then the provider can't aggregate.

However, in a world without a free-pool aggregation as a primary concern
has effectively gone out the window. We are now routing ever smaller bits
and pieces of address space, we have to, it's called recycling. Further, we
have decided that routing policy is not ARIN or the other RIR's business,
and aggregation is routing policy. Therefore address space as the only
relationship between the leasor and leasee, while not ideal, it is
impractical for this to be a policy violation any longer.

If I've been using address space for years and I want to change my provider
and my provider is willing to allow me, probably for a fee, to keep using
the address space they have loaned me for years, the facts on the ground
today make it impractical for this to be a policy violation. Further, it
that isn't a policy violation, then a new address only lease transaction
shouldn't be either.

Guys we live is a post-free-pool world some ideas have to change with the
facts on the ground.  Address leasing absent connectivity is a fact of life
in a post-free-pool world.
That doesn't mean I willing to give up on some kind of basic "use"
requirement, again someone has to be using the addresses, if not there is
no basis for an assignment or allocation, or a reassignment or reallocation
either.

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191001/5116147a/attachment.htm>