[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilizatio

Sylvain Baya abscoco at gmail.com
Tue Aug 9 10:07:49 EDT 2022


Dear ARIN-PPML,

Please find my comments below; inline...

Le lundi 8 août 2022, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> a écrit :

> ARIN Draft Policy 2021-6 was retitled earlier this year as “Permit IPv4
> Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future
> Allocations” and


>
>
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your email, brother!

...i want to recall that the INRS (Internet Numbers
Resource System) [1] directs us about which entity
are delegated/designated to, regionally and locally,
distribute INRs to other Orgs in need-basis. These
are RIR, LIR/NIR & ISP :-/
Yes! sub-allocations/assignments exist! Why not
simply use it?

Also, INRs are not properties...

imho! leasing opposes to need-basis utilization;
unless it's fully managed by the delegated RIR,
who's not really bound to need-basis constraint the
same manner as LIRs are.

If there is a *need* for a "leasing" policy; then imho,
it would be to help in solving community problems;
 and not individual ones.

An example of a community problem could be:
"shortening the INR's wainting list".

|Q1. Which Org *should* be eligible to obtain INRs
| in lease?
|
| A1. In order to obtain INRs in lease, from the RIR,
| an Org *must* join the INRs Waiting List and check
| the LIAL (List of INRs Available for Leasing)
| option.
|
|Q2. Which Org *must* be allowed to provide INRs
| for lease?
| Which Resource Holder should provide INRs
| through leasing; in order to satisfy others' needs?
|
| A2. If, after one year of holdering INRs, an Org is
| not able to use 40 % of the numbers allocated to
| it; then part of the other 60 % should join a List of
| INRs Available for Leasing (LIAL); in order to not
| fall under | the policy trap regarding minimum
| utilization. After three years these unused INRs
| join automatically the LIAL list.
|
|Q3. What's the benefit of Orgs which provide the
| INRs they hold for lease?
|
| A3. If it's true that a resource holder who have not
| used a given percentage of its allocated/assigned;
| INRs would see those INRs reclaimed; then a draft
| policy which could help them to hold those INRs
| for more long would be of great help...imho :-/
|
|Q4. ...
|
| A4. ...


Would it solve a community problem?
What's the community problem to solve?

Please share your own thoughts; even to contradict
mine :-)

Shalom,
--sb.



>
> the text was also updated based upon feedback from the community at the
> Fall 2021 meeting.
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_6/
>
> The draft did not receive sufficient support in the shepherds opinion to
> move this policy toward a recommended draft policy. Since this time the
> shepherds have been discussing with various members of the Internet
> Community and the ARIN AC on a possible path forward for this draft policy.
>
> One of the ideas was to take a look at the problem statement and perhaps
> update and clarify the problem statement in hopes that this process would
> provide additional ideas to move the process forward.
>
> The current draft policy problem statement is as follows:
>
> Problem Statement: Current ARIN policy prevents the use of leased-out
> addresses as evidence of utilization.
>
> Some contributors have suggested that there are perhaps two or more issues
> that are attempting to be solved here.
>
>     Organizations would like the ability to lease some of their address
> space and not limit the receipt of future IPv4 transfers due the fact that
> ARIN’s evaluation of utilization considers leased space today to be unused.
>
>     Organizations who wish to obtain address space are not able to pledge
> the address space as collateral in a financial transaction.  The RSA and
> ARIN policy today limit the ability of IPv4 address resources to be
> transferred to another party (financier) without that party showing need
> for use on an operational network.
>
>
> We invite your feedback on these thoughts and ideas to help us rework the
> problem statement and future policy language solving these issues.
>
> In particular, do you believe the problem statement needs to be rewritten
> to clarify the issue the Internet Community is trying to solve here?
>
> If so, what problem or problems do you believe that the Internet Community
> needs to solve and what problem statement(s) make sense to restart the
> conversation around this topic?
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback,
>
> Andrew
>
> [...]
>
>

-- 

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>
Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous
tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20220809/c8f1b585/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list