[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

[Fernando Frediani]

+1

Pretty good and clear explanation.
I am glad that more most people seem to reject the idea that IP leasing 
may be a good or even justified thing, including for those who end up 
paying for it.

On 08/09/2021 22:33, John Curran wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2021, at 5:02 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com 
> <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2021, at 11:03 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net 
>> <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> The conservation principle an overall principle contained in section 
>>> 1 – i.e. "1. Principles and Goals of the American Registry for 
>>> Internet Numbers (ARIN)” i
>>>
>>> As such, the issuance of number resources must be for “*a technical 
>>> need for them in support of operational networks."*
>>
>> Right… And an LIR’s customers with operational networks would be such 
>> a valid technical need regardless of where or how
>> that LIR’s customers connected those networks to whatever other 
>> networks. What am I missing?
>
> Owen -
>
> That would be a valid technical need for IP address space, but it is 
> not the ISP’s technical need driven by their operational networks 
> (unless the ISP is providing some connectivity services.)
>
> A  customer with an operational network could easily have technical 
> need for additional IP address space – for example, a customer which 
> has the need for additional space to grow their network can come to 
> ARIN and get more space per policy.
>
>>> They do distribute IP addresses to their customers as a result of 
>>> the provision of their network services.
>>
>> So this is still another organization’s technical need for number 
>> resources. It’s not the LIR’s need for number resources,
>> it’s their customers’ need for those resources. That’s my point.
>
> It is interesting how hard you try to twist interpretation against 
> plain language, common sense, and ARIN’s entire history of existing 
>  practice – all in order to make leasing to address space to parties 
> have no relation to your network services somehow now be a valid 
> technical need for more address space.
>
> Under such a theory, the first LIR at ARIN could claim that they have 
> technical need for more blocks to support their forthcoming leasing to 
> all cloud providers in North America (a lot of need indeed)…   The 
> fact that you have business relationship with a party does not make 
> _their_ technical requirements somehow into _your_ technical 
> requirements.
>
> On the other hand. when an ISP connects a customer to the Internet, 
> they often do need to supply some address space to the customer for 
> use in the customer’s network - it might be a single IP address for a 
> customer CPE, or it could be an large block because the customer wants 
> all of the devices on their internal network to now have Internet 
> access – i.e. precisely why they purchased Internet service.   The 
> address space needed by the ISP is a valid technical need because ISP 
> requires it for the connectivity service being provisioned, even if 
> some of it is sub-assigned and utilized on customers network 
> infrastructure.
>
> This is common practice, and nearly everyone in the ARIN ISP community 
> is both aware of it and has submitted resource requests accordingly.
>
>>> Principle applies the same either way.   As you noted, there is a 
>>> way around that - provision VPN services with IP address as a 
>>> component of that service.
>>
>> OK, so as long as GRE tunnels that never actually carry traffic are 
>> created as a fig leaf to cover the lease, it’s OK and within policy, ...
>
> Incorrect, as that is not what I said – at no point did I say “VPN 
> services that never carry traffic” represent a valid technical need.
>
> A party which indicates on their resource request that their technical 
> need is driven by growth in VPN services that _never_ will carry any 
> actual traffic would be obviously be engaging in some creative 
> fabrication, and thus declined.
>
>> but without such GRE tunnels, you believe it to be a violation of policy.
>>
>> Glad to have you on record for this (though still not convinced 
>> that’s what the policy manual actually says).
>
> As noted above, you can try to reinterpret the policy language all day 
> to justify leasing as a valid need for number resources, but that’s 
> contrary to the understanding of the ARIN community and more than two 
> decades of operating practice.
>
> If you really want to change ARIN’s existing number resource policy to 
> meet your creative new world view, please put in a policy proposal to 
> make the change and let the community discuss and decide whether 
> solely utilization due to leasing of address space to others should be 
> considered a valid need for receiving additional number resource 
> issuance.
>
> Regards,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210908/13aad8c1/attachment.htm>