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

[Scott Leibrand]

+1 to everything David just said.

Do y'all have what you need to draft another version of this proposal
tightening up the language to be consistent with this? Or does someone here
need to propose text?

-Scott

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:32 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

>
> 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/20191001/5e73bacd/attachment.htm>