[arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Mon Mar 21 11:19:31 EDT 2022

Owen - 

	Leasing being part of the "economic reality of IPv4 for the foreseeable future” is orthogonal to the ARIN registry – i.e. such an occurrence does not necessarily mean that ARIN should do either of:

		a)  Issue additional IPv4 resources via the wait-list policy to parties for the purpose of leasing to others absent connectivity services

		b)  Take into consideration a purported need based on IPv4 leasing to others (absent connectivity services) when assessing the validity of an 8.3/8.4 transfer request 

	It would be good to hear clear arguments on why each of the above changes is warranted; i.e. what is the specific benefit to the ARIN community would be achieved as result.

	(I have no view either way on the merits of the proposed policy, but believe the community should have as much clarity as possible on desired policy outcomes.)


John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

> On 20 Mar 2022, at 7:25 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
> Leasing involves a contract for services, just like an ISP.
> It’s no more arms length than leasing addresses to someone you sell connectivity to, you have a nearly identical contractual relationship.
> In fact, many ISPs charge for former customers to retain their addresses after they terminate their connectivity. How does that differ from a company which leases addresses without connectivity?
> I’m currently neither in favor of nor opposed to the proposed policy as written. I think it needs work before it’s ready to be a policy.
> However, I am in favor of formalizing the practice of leasing in policy since it is the economic reality of IPv4 for the foreseeable future, whether it is formalized in policy or not.
> Owen
>> On Mar 18, 2022, at 16:13, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com> wrote:
>> I oppose..
>> This removes ARIN's governance of IPv4 resources completely.  And in a worst case scenario a single party could buy up all of the IPv4 resources in theory, and effectively control the internet.
>> "Leasing" is for to wide of a definition, and needs to be better described before even considering this.
>> "leasing" is not a usage, IMHO in terms of the original mandate of ARIN, without a fixed customer base for services (eg, it could be said every ISP leases IPs to their customers) which is very different than saying we rent the IP(s) to arm's length parties.
>> On 2022-03-17 17:23, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>>> Actually, they’d be doing all of the same things any other LIR does with the exception of providing bandwidth and connectivity services.
>>> They’d still be responsible for getting a reasonable justification from the customer, validating that justification, registering the addresses properly in whois, etc.
>>> It might be a bit less overhead than being an ISP, but ISPs are increasingly short on IPv4 addresses and asking customers to get their own.
>>> Many customers are unable to make the capital outlay necessary to purchase the addresses they need, but do have the cash flow to support a lease.
>>> Many customers have a desire not to take the risk of a large capital outlay for a necessary component which may abruptly lose its value in the near to medium term.
>>> This situation will only get worse as the cost of IPv4 addresses continues to rise and as IPv6 deployment continues.
>>> Owen
>>>> On Mar 17, 2022, at 16:28 , Holden Karau <holden at pigscanfly.ca <mailto:holden at pigscanfly.ca>> wrote:
>>>> 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 <mailto: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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list