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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 10:19 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> 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.

So Verizon charges $99.95/address/month in some cases for a static address.
Comcast charges $15/address/month.

The non-facilities leasing provider with which I am most familiar charges $5/address/month.

Who is the high priced min-ARIN again?

Owen