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

hostmaster at uneedus.com hostmaster at uneedus.com
Tue Oct 1 13:59:48 EDT 2019

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. 
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".

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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list