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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 21, 2021, at 23:49 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 02:56 Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote:
> Hi Noah,
> 
> Will you concede that lessors and lessees are willingly engaging in leasing today?
> 
> There is no such thing. You are calling end-user assignments and suballocations that result from LIR/ISP connectivity services... leasing. No connectivity no IP address, no need.

Like it or not, there really is such a thing and it really is happening today all over the internet. It’s 100% legitimate in the RIPE region.

You cannot legitimately claim there is no such thing. It’s even 100% legitimate in the ARIN region for space you already have. It just doesn’t count as utilization for purposes
of acquiring more space in the ARIN region.

> 
> 
> That will cut out the examples and cut to the chase.
> 
> There is no need to look for hidden motivations.
> Here are the motivations as I see them, with direct experience in these matters from many levels.
> 
> Address holders no longer fear IPv6 apocalypse in the near- to mid-term.
> Addresses are skyrocketing in value, now over $60 at times.
> Your generous LIR on the list would be committing over $250,000 in value to this WISP if they designate a /20 for their use.
> 
> So a WISP would happily pay $250,000 for a lease? Rather than obtain connectivity service from an LIR and get a /24 or /23 based on real need.

As a general rule, you would not pay $250,000 per month to lease an object you could purchase for $250,000.

OTOH, the provider doesn’t want to tie up a $250,000 asset with no ROI for those months, either.

It very likely, however, makes sense for the WISP to pay $5,500/month to lease the space so that he doesn’t have to commit to a $0.25M purchase without
knowing it will bring some ROI and it’s likely profitable for the LIR as well, since they’ll collect $5,500 for each month that their $0.25M asset is tied up.

That’s how leasing generally works whether it’s routers, cars, homes, etc.

> I am struggling to see how small WISP would find leasing more strategic yet they would end up paying more to cover also the cost of middlemen.

Hopefully this presents a better clarity for you. They pay slightly more per month than if they amortized the purchase across a 4 year financing, but they
can return the addresses in fewer than 4 years and pay considerably less if the business opportunity doesn’t pan out.

> Some small ISPs and end-users can't get addresses from their upstream LIRs and need to get them on the market.
> The price is shocking and sometimes just not affordable, or if affordable, would require reduced spending elsewhere in the project.
> 
> This market you talk off, where is it and who are the LIR with so much Idle addresses to cash out?

There are a multitude of organizations that are not ready to part with their addresses permanently (possible future need, desire to maximize ROI, or other reasons), but
are interested in monetizing them through a temporary lending process. Most ISPs do this today.

> So they choose to lease, and address holders are happy to monetize their holdings while they appreciate in value.
> 
> By address holders you mean LIR. So what you are saying is that some LIR out there who requested for IPv4 based on need from ARIN, are holding the addresses which they no longer need artificially? So that they can lease to small WISP?

They are holding addresses that they received for some previously justified need. It is not clear that there is anything artificial in play.

So modulo the unwarranted assumptions you baked into your statements above, yes, you are sort of on the right track.

I will point out that any organization which is transferring addresses in a sale is in the same exact boat, so it’s not clear why you think it is worse for them to put the addresses to good use through leasing than to sell them outright.

> So that the purpose for which those LIR obtained the addresses in the first place? 

It’s unclear what your question is here. It looks like half a statement and no interrogatory.

> Suppose the addresses those LIR are holding with no intension to use them, were still under ARIN management, dont you think the new small WISP would have better off being served by ARIN as new needs arise.?

The addresses wouldn’t still be under ARIN management, they’d be in the hands of some other organization. The ARIN free pool is empty. It would be empty no matter what kind of bizarre policy was enacted prior to it being empty short of making sure that organizations that need addresses could not obtain them (which is exactly what the current policies in AFRINIC are set up to do).

> If LIR dont pay ARIN lots of money, why not return the idle addresses to ARIN so that those with genuine need can be served.

Because it has a monetary value, ARIN won’t reclaim it (and has promised not to in its RSA), and there’s no incentive for them to do so.

> There is nothing mysterious about any of it.
> 
> 
> There is alot of mystery and bad faith contrary to what the internet community expected from address management for best interest of everyone.

Not really. You are assuming bad faith where none is evident. You are making a lot of value judgements and attributing a lot of motivations to people with no evidence to support them.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210922/d0f2fcdd/attachment.htm>