[arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question

[William Herrin]

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:26 PM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another thing which many here are targeting about IP leasing
> in the sense of renting, speculation made by those who don't
> build or offer any Internet infrastructure and services. In other
> words someone holding IP space and not using it to build any
> Internet infrastructure and services.

Hi Fernando,

You may be missing my point. How do you differentiate in policy between:

Scenario 1: ISP A provides a T1 and a /24. ISP B provides a gigabit
ethernet. Customer routes with BGP on both but depreferences ISP A so
it never shows up in the Internet BGP tables.

Scenario 2: Pretextual ISP C (the defacto address leaser) provides a
/24 and a VPN (or virtual machine other nil-cost transit consuming
mechanism). ISP D provides a gigabit ethernet. Customer routes with
BGP on both but depreferences ISP C so it never shows up in the
Internet BGP tables.

Scenario 1 is considered reasonable and has been for the entire
lifetime of the RIRs.

Scenario 2 is the objectionable address leasing arrangement with a
tiny bit of fluff to bring it into technical compliance with ARIN
policy.


You can't tell ARIN to just exercise their judgement whether something
is defacto leasing. That creates legal risk to the organization where
they can't effectively act against the people they "know" to be
leasers.

You have to write a policy that outright breaks scenario #2 without
harming scenario #1.That's the utilization count approach. ISP A in
scenario #1 is not particularly bothered if ARIN gets a bee in their
bonnet about counting that /24 utilized. So they have to be at 81%
instead of 80%. Same difference.

ISP C in scenario #2, that's their entire business. If ARIN counts it
unutilized, they're out of business.

Get it?

Regards,
Bill Herrin

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