[arin-ppml] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN region

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:38 AM Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com> wrote:
> Fernando - I would support language similar to what you’ve proposed, as it explicitly requires the address allocation to be part of a connectivity service.
>
> The trick then would be to make sure organizations can’t do it the other way around; I’m reminded of a nightclub I used to frequent that held a restaurant license, which only allowed them to serve alcohol as part of a order for food. As such, customers did not order drinks, they would buy a packet of peanuts that happened to be served with an alcoholic beverage alongside.
>
> Let’s make sure that with this language, we don’t suddenly see an influx of “VPN Providers” who happen to be routing /24 or larger blocks to each of their customer’s tunnels.


Hi Chris,

As I noted in a recent thread, there's no language you can write which
will prevent that from happening. The service provider can just bump
it one step further back. "Oh, we can't provide a VPN? Okay, we don't.
We do BGP with the customer's virtual server and what they do with it
is not for us to say. Oh, we can't provide the virtual server or have
to police the customer's use?Tell that to Amazon before you hassle us.
Good luck."

However, just because we can't prevent something doesn't mean we have
to legitimize it and make it easy for the folks who want to be
high-price mini-ARINs. And if the status quo has become unstable due
to the price of IP addresses, I'd rather see the policy moved away
from leasing addresses for use with BGP rather than moved toward it.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/