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

[Fernando Frediani]

Hi Bill

You are right that just because we can't prevent something doesn't mean 
we have to legitimize it or make it easy.

I don't really have much concern when people say the RIR will find it 
difficult to enforce it. It is important to separate things: if 
something is categorically wrong then it must be said so and be as clear 
as possible to everybody that have to follow those rules.
Having certain language written clearly doesn't necessarily mean that 
ARIN staff must start hunting for offending parties and engage a lot of 
funds for that, but in first instance give them tools to justify their 
decisions and reducing the eventual conflicts between parties. Also and 
very important give them extra assurance to back their positions in a 
court case. Therefore as much as possible we should have policy language 
adjusted as close as possible as it should be.

If there is a major sentiment in the community that IP leasing it 
fundamentally wrong and should not happen in the way it has been 
discussed here then lets make it sure that is well written and clear to 
all. How ARIN will enforce it be up to staff to decide.

Chris - well noted about VPN scenarios. Got your analogy.
While there may not be a perfect text to fit for this case we may be 
able to find the most suitable one that cover most situations.
Overall once the policy advances and reach consensus it will be even 
more clear to community and to ARIN that the general consensus is not to 
allow or incentive IP leasing and any possible scenarios that ARIN be 
able to certify that may be happening.

Regards
Fernando

Em 22/09/2021 14:19, William Herrin escreveu:
> 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
>
>