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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Oct 1 13:52:54 EDT 2019


On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:37 PM Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

> Jim 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.
>
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> More hand-waving about spam and fraud that doesn't exist and ignoring the
> obvious need that does exist. A market has arisen to meet the need, that
> proves the need exists. A google search confirms this for everybody.  But
> the environment you exists and has not generated spam and fraud.
>
> This is why I point to RIPE. They have what you refer to as "policy
> facilitating enties being able to obtain from (the RIR) permanent
> allocations made to support temporary use for non-connected networks." You
> say this will create an inviting environment for more of the spooky
> consequences I have heard about for almost 10 years now. Spooky
> consequences
> absent from RIPE. Or can you find them there?
>

I'm opposed to it, but for different reasons. I worry about the cash flows
building against leased numbers and creating a situation where it increases
costs on the transfer market by competition for space. I'm seeing /24's at
$90 MRC. That's roughly $4 per address per year leased vs. $21 on the
transfer market. I agree, probably not abused any more than anything else.
For me, it sends the wrong message transition wise.

>
> Can it be more clear?  RIPE has had NO NEEDS TEST FOR YEARS.  We have
> performed the experiment, why ignore the results?
> If I want to become a Lessor, yet another reason to incorporate in Europe,
> I
> guess. There is no restriction in RIPE in the purchasing of addresses for
> the purpose of leasing them out, nor for the leasing part.
> A recipe for registry-shopping and address-flight.
>

I mostly agree with you. RIPE is a different region though and has
different allocation patterns and concerns about their registry inventory.
RIPE policy makers seem to feel that exhausting and a liberal market is the
fastest way to transition.At least that's how I read it sometimes. I'm not
going to judge if they are right or wrong. ARIN network operators tend to
want to be more independent and there are many examples where the world
goes left and NA goes right, infrastructure wise. Just the nature of the
beast. I don't think everyone understands that there actually is common
policy (via the ASO process and IANA) and then globally coordinated, more
like a treaty. Its just not everything. But there is more in common than
not.

Best,

-M<




> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191001/10e5bd3c/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list