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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

The ONLY antitrust issue I see being expressed in the discussion that we 
have been having is that of ARIN.

ARIN has specifically positioned itself as THE source of internet 
addresses within its region. That itself looks like a classic antitrust 
issue by itself. Even LIR's are required to apply ARIN policy when 
providing resources with their services, so that is not real competition. 
When ARIN sets up pricing schedules that might be considered by regulators 
to be impacting the small guy more, that is a condition that clearly might 
get regulators looking at ARIN.

On the other hand, the availability of addresses from both connectivity 
and non connectivity providers, including a long list of those providers 
and their prices has been posted to the list.  Is not the availability of 
a product from many providers the thing that anti trust law is suppposed 
to promote?

When ARIN council posts about anti trust issues, is not THAT an ARIN 
issue?  I think council should look more to the anti trust issues that 
exist with the current or proposed "take it or get nothing" price policy 
that exists within this region at ARIN. As members, while we have some 
input by electing board members that we agree with, we have little choice 
as to the current or future adopted price schedules.  Our choices are 
simply to pay, or do without the resources.  If we operate ONLY in the 
ARIN region, we really have no other source. That smacks classic 
antitrust.

The primary reason I oppose leasing is that it tends to take away from the 
marketplace addresses that would otherwise be available for purchase by 
those who intend to put them to use in operational networks. This is 
because leasing companies are willing to pay more per unit, because they 
see them as an investment, and not a resource to be used in "operational 
networks" like is intended by ARIN policy.

While some might not have the capital to purchase, and like the idea of 
being able to lease (much like the commercial real estate market), in the 
longer term, those that directly own often have lower costs overall, and 
can control their future in a manner that leasing does not provide. This 
is in part caused by the risk that leases may skyrocket, depending on 
market conditions.

Leasing companies have been grabbing whatever addresses it can find, 
forcing the market price upward for those that actually want to get more 
addresses to expand their IPv4 based network. I like the idea that leases
are not counted toward need for more addresses, because "operational 
networks" should get priority on all resources.

There are those who suggest the leasing companies can simply transfer the 
addresses to RIPE to avoid this policy.  Maybe ARIN should consider 
language that prevents such transfers, if they are being made solely to 
get around the ARIN policy regarding leasing.  Quite a bit of discussion 
of the workarounds by those promoting leasing has also been made.  Just 
because you can work around an ARIN policy, does not make it right.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:

>
>
>> On Sep 22, 2021, at 11:52 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:32 AM Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>>> Every LIR is a mini-ARIN by nature, isn't it?
>>
>> No. And yes. And no.
>>
>> I personally dislike the term "Local Internet Registry" precisely
>> because it creates this ambiguity. I'd be happier if we just stuck
>> with "ISP."
>
> Problem is ISP doesn’t really work when you include the myriad other
> kinds of address providers that have to exist in the modern world, such
> as cloud, hosting, colo, etc.
>
>> To my point of view, a network service includes IP addresses. The ISP
>> isn't really acting as a mini-ARIN, they're providing a network
>> service.
>
> If that were true, this wouldn’t be an issue, but with various ISPs now
> charging a separate per-address fee, why shouldn’t they be subject
> to competition for that aspect of their business separate from their
> connectivity business? Why is it ARIN’s place to shield them from
> competition?
>
> If you want to talk about an anti-trust issue, wouldn’t this be the classic
> case?
>
>> When they provide so many IP addresses with the service that it
>> becomes a number policy concern then you could say they're acting as a
>> mini-ARIN. Which I think is a problem. There's a long-standing
>> practice of ISPs assigning /24s and more to end-users which then find
>> their way into the BGP table disaggregated from the ISP's allocation.
>> That troubles me almost as much as the folks who want to be
>> straight-up mini ARINs without providing network services.
>
> We all get it that you have long thought ARIN should be the rout
> aggregation police. They aren’t, and that’s not going to happen.
>
> Can we try focusing on reality as it currently stands?
>
>> I actually did a 10-minute presentation at an ARIN meeting in Atlanta
>> years and years ago where I talked about forward-looking developments
>> in routing technology and the impairment that ISP disaggregates could
>> impose.
>
> And then memory got bigger, faster, cheaper and in a few more Moore’s
> law iterations, will probably permanently surpass bop table growth.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>