[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

[Isaiah Olson]

Mike,

I would hardly say it's time for a funeral in RIPE, but I would ask, do 
you think it's a coincidence that roughly 75% of the /24 blocks that I 
have blackholed on my network for spamming my email server are 
registered to anonymous hosting companies in the RIPE region? I don't 
agree that the results of the RIPE policy speak for themselves, and I 
would love to see more data aggregated by some of the more talented 
internet sleuths on here regarding the proportion of abuse activity 
split up by RIR. I also disagree with all five of your assumptions about 
opposing this policy. The onus is not on ARIN to sanctify practices that 
some are already engaging in, but rather to distribute number resources 
in accordance with community developed policy. If other RIR communities 
choose to make other decisions, that doesn't make it the correct 
decision for the ARIN region. I don't support any policy that amplifies 
the practice of leasing because I reject your arguments about the 
necessity of the practice. There is a waiting list available for 
legitimate new entrants, and I don't buy the argument that networks with 
greater than a /20 cannot afford the capital outlay to purchase a block. 
Please feel free to provide any data you can to back up your five 
assertions. For my assertion, please consider the following:

> Prefixes exchanged within the RIPE region as sales originate have the 
> highest fraction of blacklisted IPs, which is statistically significant.

Source: 
https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/139789/1/VGiotsas_PAM2020_IPv4_Transfers_abuse.pdf

- Isaiah

On 9/21/2021 3:24 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> I am in total agreement with your sentiment and the requirement for a 
> circuit should continue to stand.
>
> Any policy that removes such a requirement would render the management 
> of Internet Number Resources by the registry useless and thereby 
> essentially lead to no need for the registry after all.
>
> Noah
>
> Hi Noah,
>
> Are you aware that there has been no needs-test for RIPE transfers for 
> many years and the RIR system hasn’t collapsed?
>
> To make it clear, in RIPE you can purchase address space with the sole 
> purpose of leasing it out. And you have been able to do that for many 
> years now.  Plainly, openly, within all policy. So please let us know 
> where to send the flowers for RIPE’s funeral. That goes for others who 
> predict that bad things will follow from adopting this policy, please 
> keep RIPE’s example in mind to provide a reality check. The experiment 
> has already been performed.
>
> Owen has already pointed out the futility of the circuit requirement 
> in practice,  yet you think that’s what keeps the RIR system functional?
>
> Opposing this policy means the only lessors are the lucky incumbents.
>
> Opposing this policy means a lack of policy is preferred, despite the 
> open practice of leasing.
>
> Opposing this policy provides incentive for registry-shopping and 
> address outflow.
>
> Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool and drives up lease rates.
>
> Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes accurate registration.
>
> Let me know if any of these assertions require amplification, I guess 
> some may not be clear but this is already too long.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210921/54bdf3c7/attachment.htm>