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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 2:00 PM <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:

> My understanding is as part of this draft, the term "non connected
> network" is not intended to have the meaning that normal network folks
> would give it, but instead is meant to mean the organization that controls
> the numbers does not offer any connectivity to itself over the numbers.
>

+1. Which is what made me look at cost and benefits. I saw Dave Farmer
quoted older RFC's. This isn't bootp or dhcp and I tend to doubt that the
IETF had this type of use in mind at that time. Non-connected is a soft
term for NOT connected and NOT providing internet service "ISP" to the
address block user. There is little dispute over the definition of ISP IMHO.

However it does NOT mean the numbers are not connected to the Internet,
> since the owner has or intends to lease them to someone using them to
> connect to the internet.  Thus I consider the term deceptive, and the
> reason the proposer does not feel RFC1918 addresses will work, is because
> in actual fact the numbers ARE connected to the Internet, just not via the
> network of the organization that controls that block of numbers.
>
> In other words "non connected network" means a block controlled by someone
> who leases the addresses contained within without using the word "lease".
> The proposal to eliminate the "operational use" and screening functions
> like RIPE is intended to allow the creation of a short term leasing
> agencies that could be used by those not wanting to obtain addressss via
> the transfer market, and reseling them on when they are done using them.
>
> Those who choose to lease addresses on a short term basis is likely using
> them on the internet, and may or may not be what we would consider an
> abuser.  Being one step removed from the RSA signer I think makes this
> proposal unwise.  We should allow directed transfers to go ONLY to those
> who intend to put the numbers to "operational use".
>

That removal makes me wonder about public safety implications too. (and
below supports that)




> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019, Brian Jones wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> 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/20191001/789f657e/attachment.htm>