[arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Wed Mar 16 18:22:08 EDT 2022
Hi David
If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there should be a
ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because it is a reality and we
kind of have to accept it in our days. No we don't, and that's for many
different reasons.
I am used to see people saying the brokers are doing a good thing for
the community by facilitating the things which in reality is the
opposite. It may look like a good things, but the real beneficiaries are
only them who profit from it without much concern of what is fair or not
to most organizations involved.
IP Leasing is very different from IP Transfer which I see not problem
they continue doing it. IP Transfer at least we have some guarantees
that the directly receiving organization really justify for them and
that is a quiet important (I would say fundamental) point to look at,
because that is fairer to everyone involved. What guarantees we have
when a IP Leasing is done in that sense, that fairness start to lack here.
People see the brokers are doing a favor to organizations in general by
facilitating they get some chunks of IPv4, but that in reality makes the
cost of IPv4 for both leasing and transfer more and more expensive as it
makes organization even more dependent from these those crumbs that seem
to be offered with good intention but in reality it is feeding a system
that is contrary the interests to most organizations involved.
It may sound a cliche but IPv4 is over and organizations must learn how
to survive with what they have, reinvent themselves and make better used
of their IPv4 resources, deploy a proper CGNAT, deploy IPv6 either they
like it or not, etc. If an organization have so little or none and need
some minimal amount is fine they seek for a Transfer of a minimal amount
with the help of brokers.
Encouraging IP Leasing as if it were something normal just "because it
exists today" is a shot in the foot that in the long term only worsens
the existing scenario, it feeds a market without much discretion
increasing final prices for everyone and what is the worst of all,
creates even more unfairness for everyone who has always submitted to
the rules we have until today for distributing addresses to those who
really have a real justification to keep control of that resource that
does not belong to them.
Regards
Fernando
On 16/03/2022 13:09, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> Yes, bundling IPv4 addresses with bandwidth is permitted, and in the
> past was common practice, heck even the expected practice. However,
> the fact that IPv4 address demand isn't decreasing significantly, the
> costs to acquire new IPv4 addresses are increasing significantly, and
> with the increasing commoditization of bandwidth, it is no longer
> economically viable to bundle bandwidth, and its associated
> connectivity, with IPv4 addressing. This is driving a structural
> separation of bandwidth, connectivity, and IPv4 addressing, from each
> other, instead of bundling them together as in the past.
>
> Let me state that differently; ISPs are being driven, buy cost
> conscience consumers, to separate the costs of bandwidth and the costs
> of the IPv4 addresses needed to utilize the bandwidth from each
> other. Minimally this separation is achieved by accounting for the
> costs on separate line items of a common bill from a single provider.
> However, price competition for bandwidth and IPv4 addresses separately
> will inevitably drive a structural separation between the two.
> Consumers will want the best price they can get for bandwidth and the
> best price they can get for IPv4 addresses, regardless of whether they
> come from a single provider or not.
>
> Some may argue this is being driven by the existence of address
> brokers, and their desire to make money, I disagree. While address
> brokers making money is the grease that keeps this machine working,
> the need for the machine is driven by; IPv4 free pool exhaustion, the
> increasing cost of IPv4 addresses, and the lack of adoption of IPv6.
> In other words, address brokers wouldn't exist if there wasn't a
> demand for their services.
>
> In short, the economic conditions that allowed for and even encouraged
> the bundling of IPv4 addresses with bandwidth and connectivity no
> longer exist, that world is gone. While I have not personally yet
> determined if I support this particular policy text, nevertheless, the
> time has come to recognize the next step in this inextricable
> evolution of IPv4 address policy by the ARIN policy community and
> permit IPv4 leasing.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:05 PM John Santos <john at egh.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree. The addresses are useless unless they ALSO purchase
> access and
> routing from another network operator. How is this cheaper?
>
> It is and always has been allowed to lease bundled access of
> addresses and
> connectivity from a LIR, without any expense for purchasing those
> addresses.
>
>
> On 3/11/2022 12:13 PM, Tom Fantacone wrote:
> > I support the proposal as written.
> >
> > It facilitates the provision of a valuable service to a large
> swath of the ARIN
> > community, namely the ability of network operators with an
> operational need to
> > lease IPv4 addresses from 3rd party lessors at a fraction of the
> cost of
> > purchasing those addresses. Too often we have seen network
> operators justify
> > their need for IPv4 space only to find that they can't afford to
> make the
> > purchase. They end up using CGNAT or some other sub-optimal
> solution.
> >
> > Bill, regarding your point "B", by providing IPv4 leasing, these
> 3rd parties are
> > certainly performing a function that ARIN does not.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 17:46:36 -0500 *William Herrin
> <bill at herrin.us>* wrote ----
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:24 PM ARIN <info at arin.net
> <mailto:info at arin.net>>
> > wrote:
> > > * ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes
> of Determining
> > Utilization for Future Allocations
> >
> > I continue to OPPOSE this proposal because:
> >
> > A) It asks ARIN to facilitate blatant and unapologetic
> rent-seeking
> > behavior with changes to public policy.
> >
> > B) It proposes that third parties perform precisely and only the
> > functions that ARIN itself performs without any credible
> compliance
> > mechanism to assure the third party performs to ARIN's
> standards or in
> > accordance with the community's established number policy.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> >
> > --
> > William Herrin
> > bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>
> > https://bill.herrin.us/ <https://bill.herrin.us/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> > <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> > Please contact info at arin.net <mailto: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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20220316/27660206/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list