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

[John Santos]

There exist disconnected (from the Internet) networks that require unique 
addressing.  RFC1918 is inadequate, because conflicting RFC1918 addresses might 
(and often do) exist in other private networks that are interconnected with each 
other.  My company has such a network, that is inteconnected with many other 
networks, some private and some public (but none of which publish routes to our 
network, though they often do so internally.)

This was established as a valid use case decades ago.

On 9/22/2021 2:45 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> "No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted to issue addresses to customers who, in ARIN’s belief and discretion, are not contracting for a bona fide connectivity service that makes use of the allocated addresses.”
> 
> Does that sound unreasonable?
> 
> -C
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Have you considered that every lessee contracts for connectivity service somewhere in order to use the allocated addresses?
> 
> So I can lease my addresses to my lessees, they connect to another network via BGP and advertise my block under their ASN. How would that affect your proposed change to the RSA? Those using the addresses have in fact contracted for the bona fide connectivity service your language requires.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> PS Sorry John and Michael, I saw you emails and this will be the last post to this thread.
> 
> 
> Sounds like the whoosh of addresses from ARIN to RIPE.
> Or a bunch of little vpn tunnels bubbling up.
> Many cloud providers allow for clients to bring their own addresses and use them on the cloud network.
> So the addresses are being advertised by an ASN which is not associated with the address owner.
> This is the practice of leasing, blocks advertised through other parties' networks.
> Every lessee has connectivity service that makes use of the allocated addresses, how else would they be used?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Chris Woodfield
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:25 PM
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN region
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 22, 2021, at 10:19 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
> 
> Thinking more on this, I don’t disagree. It may be very much the case that any attempt to technically define the type of practice such a policy is intended to discourage - despite everyone having a similar mental model of what that practice is - is doomed to an arms race of technical workarounds and fig leaves.
> 
> As such, I’m wondering if the language we’re looking for may not be technical language, but in fact legal language. If you’ll forgive the anecdote, I’m in the process of buying a new car, and I noticed language that gives the dealer the right to cancel the sale if the dealer believes that it is being made “with an eye towards resale, or otherwise in bad faith”. This, IMO is fuzzy enough that it gives the dealer quite a bit of discretion to see through technical workarounds, while keeping organizations that are not engaged in leasing reasonably safe from finding themselves on the wrong side of a technical definition of the practice.
> 
> Modifying Fernando’s suggested language, I’d think something like the following could be viable:
> 
> "No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted to issue addresses to customers who, in ARIN’s belief and discretion, are not contracting for a bona fide connectivity service that makes use of the allocated addresses.”
> 
> Does that sound unreasonable?
> 
> -C
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539