[arin-ppml] FW: 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
Fri Mar 18 16:12:41 EDT 2022
On 18/03/2022 11:52, Mike Burns wrote:
> <clip>
>
> The primary value of the leasing company is that they are allowing the
> effective financing of Ipv4 address space through the taking-on of
> risk in the initial investment. Currently there is no vehicle for
> this, and the result is that smaller, newer, less-capitalized
> companies are required to pay in full, up-front, for address blocks.
>
That's the repeated history brokers have been trying to tell
organizations that have been facing challenges regarding IPv4 exhaustion
either because they are new in the sector or most commonly because they
didn't bother to take any other measures to deal with the new standard.
Even newcomers have how to have access to some amounts to work with
without needing to lease them from an organization who don't have
justification to keep those addresses. And still brokers who have been
facilitating IP leasing play the good guys as if there was not other
options and we as a community who define the rules would have to accept
it and change the current rules for their own benefit, not the community.
The reality is the IP Leasing increase costs for all (either those who
lease or transfer), eliminates accountability, increases unfainess and
still the history if that leasing comes save those "poor less capable ones".
This "vehicle" expensive and unnecessary and there are options available
that not necessarily imposes worsening the whole system for few people
benefits.
Fernando
> Unless they lease them from the only allowed lessors (per current
> policy), that is the IPv4-rich incumbent owners.
>
> So if you want to support the little guy, I think you should support
> this policy, but if you want to protect those who received address in
> the past that they no longer need, then you should oppose this policy.
>
> There are many other values the leasing company provides, values
> stemming from skills related to reputation, location, hijacking,
> recovery, and the pre-identification of scammers/spammers, and values
> related to the provision of addresses for temporary or seasonal use,
> or to enter markets aggressively which may or may not pay off. As the
> market matures, more value will no doubt be driven by competition.
> Things like lease-to-own options, highly efficient web or app-based
> access to lessors and lessees, these are some things that spring to my
> mind as capabilities to distinguish leasing companies from RIRs so as
> to provide the value that the market requires. If there were no value
> provided, why would anybody utilize their services?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> *On Behalf Of *Holden Karau
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 17, 2022 7:29 PM
> *To:* andrew.dul at quark.net
> *Cc:* arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy
> ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining
> Utilization for Future Allocations
>
> Wait so some company could come to ARIN and ask for a block of IP
> addresses using leasing as the justification and then turn around and
> lease them.
>
> What value is the leasing company providing? It seems like a solid way
> to get a bunch of LLCs formed to acquire IP addresses from the waiting
> list and then make money for doing ~nothing.
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>
> The draft policy as currently written does not provide any
> additional limits against speculation. As drafted, it allows any
> organization (including those who do not operate networks) to
> obtain IPv4 addresses for the purpose of leasing.
>
> With that policy change what types of limits does the community
> think would be needed?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>
> On 3/17/2022 3:00 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> +1 to both Owen and David Farmer's comments. Leasing IPv4
> space is likely the best solution for some networks that need
> those addresses to operate their network. If an organization
> wants to acquire and lease out IPv4 space without providing
> bundled IPv4 transit, that should be allowed by policy. It
> might be useful for ARIN policy to try to slightly dampen
> speculation by requiring that organizations seeking to acquire
> large blocks of IPv4 space demonstrate that their current
> holdings are being efficiently used by the organization
> they're registered to in whois. I am not sure if this policy
> proposal does that to my satisfaction, but once we ensure it
> does so, I would likely support it.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
> <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Well, of course, you are free to deny reality as much as
> you want. Many people do. It’s not particularly helpful in
> the discussion, however.
>
> 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.
>
> You are actually mistaken here. I used to think as you do,
> actually. I was very resistant to the first “specified
> transfer” policies because of some of the reasons you
> describe. However, what you are failing to recognize is that:
>
> + Brokers and specified transfers were going to happen
> with or without the RIRs. If they happened without the RIRs,
>
> there’d be no accurate record of who was using which
> address space and the provenance of addresses would be
>
> very difficult to support or defend.
>
> * Benefit to the community from brokers: (ethical) brokers
> are familiar with the rules in the RIRs in which
>
> they operate and can assist their customers in accurate
> and compliant registration updates and
>
> aid in keeping the allocation database(s) accurate.
>
> + With the economic realities of IPv4 addresses becoming
> progressively more and more expensive and the advent
>
> of ISPs with limited IPv4 resources available, it is
> inevitable that more and more IP service providers will be
>
> doing one or more of the following:
>
> + Separate surcharges for IPv4 addresses
>
> + Expecting customers to supply their own IPv4 addresses
>
> + Surcharges for IPv4 services
>
> + IPv4 “installation charges” large enough to cover the
> procurement of addresses
>
> * Brokers assist ISPs and customers in many of the above
> circumstances.
>
> + With a variety of organizations holding IPv4 addresses
> that may or may not even known they have them and whose
>
> IPv4 resources may vastly exceed their needs, it is
> (arguably) desirable to have those addresses be
> transferred to parties
>
> that have current need for IPv4 addresses.
>
> * Brokers provide a valuable service to the community
> identifying and marketing these resources
>
> * Paid transfers provide an incentive for entities to make
> more efficient use of the resources they have in order
>
> to monetize the resources they no longer need. Brokers are
> frequently able to assist in this process.
>
> + With the high cost of acquisition, IPv4 addresses have
> become a capital intensive part of any network-dependent
>
> business model that must support IPv4. Further, there is
> some risk that this capital outlay may be fore a resource
>
> which will abruptly and quickly lose its value and no
> longer be needed well before it can be amortized as a capital
>
> expenditure. As such, it may make sense for some entities
> to transfer that risk to another organization by using
>
> a lease structure instead of purchasing the addresses
> outright.
>
> * Brokers that provide IPv4 leasing in an ethical and
> policy compliant way provide a valuable service
>
> to these businesses. Yes, their price per address may
> eventually be more than it would have cost
>
> them to purchase the addresses, but the same is true of
> virtually any rental situation. On the other hand,
>
> that excess helps offset the risk that the lessor is
> taking by owning a resource that may or may not remain
>
> valuable and may or may not continue to produce revenue.
>
> 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.
>
> If we set the policies up correctly, we should have the
> same exact guarantees on a lease.
>
> If $ISP acquires a /10 through transfer and then issues
> various subordinate prefixes to their customer, the only
> guarantee
>
> you have that $ISP’s customers who receive the addresses
> really justify them is that $ISP says so. We generally
> trust $ISP
>
> to act in good faith.
>
> If $LESSOR acquires a /10 through transfer and then leases
> various subordinate prefixes to their customers, we have
> pretty
>
> much the same guarantee with the additional bit that
> $CUSTOMER is at least willing to pay enough for the
> addresses to $LESSOR
>
> to make the lease make sense. In general, I think it is
> somewhat safe to assume that $CUSTOMER is not going to make a
>
> monthly recurring payment to $LESSOR for something they
> don’t intend to use. If one’s intent is to deprive the
> market and
>
> inflate the price, then the risk profile for such a
> transaction is vastly more favorable if you purchase
> rather than lease.
>
> Sure, there could be lessors that don’t get reasonable
> justification for allocations from their customers, but
> there are most
>
> certainly ISPs in that category as well. Either way,
> you’ve got very little assurance. A lessor can provide
> just as much
>
> justification to an RIR for the addresses they will
> allocate to leases as an ISP can for addresses they will
> lease to their
>
> customers. The only difference is a lease with
> connectivity from the same company or a lease from a
> company other than
>
> the one(s) providing connectivity.
>
> 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.
>
> Just as you are free to mount, balance, and rotate your
> own tires, or, you can go to a tire store and have them
> perform that service for a fee, brokers provide a service
> for a fee. If you want to obtain addresses in the transfer
> market without a broker, you’re still free to do that.
> Brokers are not driving the cost of IPv4… The scarcity and
> difficulty of operating with IPv4 is driving the cost of
> IPv4. Brokers are along for the ride providing a service
> and collecting a fee for that service. Whether that fee is
> reasonable or not is (and should be) entirely in the eye
> of the customer. Customers are always free to walk away
> and find a different supplier or look for their addresses
> independently.
>
> 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.
>
> I agree. However, the increasing cost of IPv4 is a natural
> and organic part of that process and sticking our heads in
> the sand and pretending that it is not the economic
> reality of how the current world works will not help
> anyone. Not the community, not organizations that are
> short on IPv4 resources, and not the RIRs who are only
> useful so long as their databases provide a reasonably
> accurate reflection of the actual utilization of the
> address space and who controls it.
>
> A broker is an LIR just like an ISP. Since ISPs are now
> charging for addresses independent of connectivity and
> bandwidth, it only makes sense that customers can shop for
> them separately from different suppliers. Just like you
> can buy tires for your car from the dealership or from
> some other store that sells and supports tires, IPv4
> addresses are moving that way as well. The RIRs can either
> recognize this and adapt to it with policies that make
> sense and preserve some of the things you’ve outlined as
> concerns above, or, they can simply deny the reality of
> IPv4 leasing and lose track of how addresses are actually
> managed for some significant chunks of the internet.
>
> 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.
>
> I don’t believe that a policy that merely allows IPv4
> leasing can be said to encourage it. Rather, it permits
> it, recognizes that it exists and is not going to stop
> existing just because policy pretends it can’t exist.
>
> The market is not likely to be significantly swayed by
> policy in terms of pricing, with the exception that
> AFRINIC has been able to preserve a devalued price on
> addresses within their region due to their restrictive
> lack of a transfer policy for moving addresses to/from
> AFRINIC. However, while this has the effect of keeping
> AFRINIC IPv4 addresses less expensive on the open market,
> it also leads to a significant amount of utilization of
> those addresses outside of policy and quite a bit of
> hoarding of addresses by some of AFRINIC’s largest
> members. ARIN’s counsel has advised against naming names
> here, so I won’t, but if you want names, contact me off list.
>
> Owen
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> --
>
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau <https://twitter.com/holdenkarau>
>
> Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.):
> https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9>
>
> YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220318/75eca189/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list