[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Fri Sep 10 19:38:15 EDT 2021


On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 1:13 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:25 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 6:06 AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> >> An LIR may not assert that  they have a new _technical need_ for more IP address space as a result of signing a leasing contract.
> >
> > Lol. They have to take the extra step of programming a router. The
> > business need is made technical. Such a high, high bar.
>
> Yes, under current policy that is correct.
>
> Do you see that as a problem – and if so, do you have a proposed change to policy text to improve it?   That requirement could be eliminated or could be strengthened (as the community feels most appropriate.)

Hi John,

I think:

1. It's disingenuous to argue that a LIR can't lease addresses absent
infrastructure when the infrastructure bar they have to meet is
negligible.

2. I've tried and failed to draft policy which sets a higher
infrastructure bar without creating an operational problem for real
networks.

3. I'm disturbed by the idea of an "ISP" which just leases addresses.
When I examine that feeling more closely, I find that it's not far
different than the unease I feel about ISPs providing any addresses
for BGP use by customers, with or without network infrastructure.
Which in turn is not far different than I feel about ISPs providing
large blocks of addresses to any customer rather than asking them to
process technical need through ARIN. All three of those situations
have conflicts of interest in which the ultimate user of those
addresses may not be well served. Fixing these things -would- likely
mean operational changes to real networks.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list