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

[Noah]

Hi Mike

I dont buy the WISP temporary use-case you are parading in support of your
argument.

FWIW, we have so many LIR on this list. Let any of them since they hold the
needed space to confirm that they would not sub-allocate reasonable /20 to
a serious WISP as part of connectivity service.

I would like to know of an LIR ready to lease space to WISP temporarily for
the sake of profit without connectivity.

Maybe space is artificially being held by those who justified the need for
it, yet pay less in membership fees but would happily make a killing in
hoarded IPv4 space.

Is this what this policy is all about?

Noah

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 02:23 Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

> Hi Noah,
>
> No, the LIR who provides backbone connectivity to the WIPS can't spare a
> /21 for a potentially temporary use.
> They told the WISP to get their own addresses.
> This is the world we live in here, Noah, it's not like in the AFRINIC
> region.
> Leasing exists because lessors and lessees see it as advantageous to them.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:16:48 -0400 *Noah <noah at neo.co.tz
> <noah at neo.co.tz>>* wrote ----
>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 01:58 Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Noah,
>
> "I dont see why a small startup WISP would prefer brokers or IPv4 leasers
> to an LIR.!"
>
> It's because we are out of addresses here in ARIN.
>
>
> But the LIR who provide IP based services and circuit have some which;
>
>
> So the WISP can (only if they have less than a /20) try to get a /24 from
> the waiting list, but it is no guaranty.
> What if they need a /21?
>
>
> They can sub-allocate to WISP downstream customers or end-users or
> end-sites though the LIR circuit.
>
>
> The have to either purchase or lease, and if they are not sure a new
> territory will work out, it makes business sense to lease rather than
> purchase.
>
>
> If it makes business sense to lease, the best is to seek sub-allocations
> from existing LIR by requesting a service from the said LIR.
>
> Chances are the cost of direct sub allocation from an LIR providing such a
> WISP connectivity services would be way much lower since there are no 3rd
> party markups cost wise.
>
>
>
> And that's assuming they can afford to purchase.
>
>
>
> If they don't prefer brokers or IPv4 lessors to an LIR, there is no lease
> business and nothing for you to fret about.
>
>
> The draft policy dont make no sense. The whole thing started with IPv4
> transfers year ago and now cropping into IPv4 lessors but to whose benefit.
> Certainly not the community.
>
> Noah
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:53:05 -0400 *Noah <noah at neo.co.tz
> <noah at neo.co.tz>>* wrote ----
>
> Hi Mike
>
> Majority of LIR are in a position to provide IP transit circuits services
> to a small startup WISP which through the transit service can also enjoy
> sub-allocations of /24 or more at no cost beyond the IPT service.
>
> I dont see why a small startup WISP would prefer brokers or IPv4 leasers
> to an LIR.!
>
> Noah
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 00:47 Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Noah,
>
>
>
> Thanks for  your thoughts, my replies are inline.
>
>
>
> “Transfers are generally a prerogative of brokers who don't necessarily
> provide any form of network services. It does make sense for a broker to
> defend this model.”
>
>
>
> Noah that is a meaningless ad hominem, every transfer has a recipient.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> “ What happens in RIPE does not have to trickle down to ARIN or any other
> region for that matter.”
>
>
>
> Correct, but we can use the evidence provided by RIPE in predicting the
> outcome of this policy. You predicted that RIRs would no longer be needed
> and I offered RIPE’s continued existence as rebuttal. Your turn, or have
> you abandoned your objection that this policy would lead to RIR irrelevance?
>
>
>
> Opposing this policy means the only lessors are the lucky incumbents.
>
>
>
> “How so, last I checked, as an LIR, we continue to sub-allocate/assign
> every end-user we bring online through every circuit.  For end-users who
> need more than we can sub-allocate, we refer them to the RIR for such
> needs. The RIR system has in place policies that have worked for decades so
> well to the best interest of the community and the internet as we know it.”
>
>
>
> It means that the only leasing allowed under ARIN policy today is when
> current address owners lease their addresses. Does that make my assertion
> clearer? Do you still deny my assertion?
>
>
>
> Opposing this policy means a lack of policy is preferred, despite the open
> practice of leasing.
>
>
>
> “There is already a policy. What do you mean lack of policy yet there is
> already a policy which has worked well until you folks want to now remove
> the need for a circuit so that those of you who benefit from the no circuit
> based service of IPv$ can expand the scope of your business model beyond
> just RIPE and provide IPv4 a much longer lifeline.”
>
>
>
> There is no ARIN policy regarding leasing, that is what I meant by my
> assertion. So ARIN resource holder are free to lease out their space. By
> rejecting this proposal you wish to maintain an NRPM with no lease policy
> at all. I mean that’s okay, but I think it’s asking for problems.
>
> Opposing this policy provides incentive for registry-shopping and address
> outflow.
>
>
>
> “What registry shopping. The widely known practise has always been RIR <>
> LIR <> END-USER. This has worked and continues too.”
>
>
>
> Yes, this might not be clear. Companies who wish to lease address space
> can purchase RIPE space for this purpose even if they don’t have an
> immediate need on an operational network. So that increases demand for RIPE
> space over ARIN space and provides an incentive for addresses to flow, over
> time, to RIPE because addresses will flow to where the need is. This would
> be a long term issue, but we should be aware that address owners do have
> options in their choice of RIR, and policies favorable to owners will
> provide a lure. There are already significant leasing operations based in
> RIPE, drawing in addresses that could otherwise feed the local transfer
> market. In their absence addresses can flow into RIPE from other RIRs.
>
>
>
> Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool and drives up lease rates.
>
>
>
> “If your business model is to profit from leasing and not the IP related
> services which include connectivity, then yes. LIR who focus on providing
> services and using integers as a means to do so, dont worry much about
> lease rates since 99% LIR businesses are not those of IPv4 brokerage or
> leasing with no service.”
>
>
>
> I am simply pointing out that prices rise when supply dips and vice versa.
> By artificially limiting the pool of lessors to those who have already
> received addresses they are not using, you limit the competitiveness of the
> lease offers and this naturally leads to higher prices. It would be better
> for consumers if there were more and not less lessors, as cumbersome as
> that sounds.
>
>
>
> Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes accurate registration.
>
>
>
> “99% of LIR business models are such that LIR's provide IP related
> services that require a numbered circuit. Majority of LIR around the world
> follow this school of thought.
>
>
>
> Only a handful of profit minded IPv4 brokers and those who subscribe to
> the IPv4 leasing business model; are into this flawed draft policy whose
> aim is to profit off limited IPv4 addresses without necessarily providing
> Internet based services.
>
>
>
> Worse of it is that, we have experienced purported LIR running an IPv$
> enterprise without offering any circuit based service. The entity's annual
> membership contribution to the RIR is hardly $15K yet holds millions of
> IPv4 addresses it hoards so that it can go about leasing them for
> significant figures of $30 per IPv4 address.
>
>
>
> Noah”
>
>
>
> Please leave your AFRINIC issues outside this discussion, as we  have no
> free pool here to raid. And also your ad hominems about brokers. My point
> is that by requiring lessors to register leases as assignments if they want
> to use them as justification, we are providing an incentive for accurate
> registration that currently does not exist.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210922/16595032/attachment.htm>