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

[Paul E McNary]

For one ARIN is technically out of IPv4. 
2 - Every Upstream provider I have gotten bandwidth from requires us to use "their" provided IP Block in front of our block. Albeit 1 or 2 usable IP's. 
They also never let us pass through BGP announcing. They take our ASN BGP and convert to their ASN BGP. 


From: "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at gmail.com> 
To: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> 
Cc: "arin-ppml" <arin-ppml at arin.net> 
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 6:23:01 PM 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question 



Hi Willian. A customer who holds an ASN and is a ARIN member should not get IP space to announce with their own ASN from the ISP provider but directly with ARIN in all cases. 
Legal risk will always exists and it is not because it exists it should not be taken, just need to evaluated and worked. 


There has been a proposal presented not much a while ago that intended to get that separation better worded and which was still in the process of getting feedback and improvements, but AC quickly dismissed it in a questionable way despite there has been people interested in discussing and improving it. A pity. There has not even been a chance to get a improved text in that sense. 
And honestly there will always be some way someone will find out to try to circumvent rules and I don't think there will be a perfect text, but a reasonable one that can cover most scenarios can play a important role in reducing scenarios where resources can be misused. 
On 08/05/2023 19:45, William Herrin wrote: 



On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:26 PM Fernando Frediani [ mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com | <fhfrediani at gmail.com> ] wrote: 

BQ_BEGIN

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 

BQ_END

_______________________________________________ 
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. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20230508/c8e90851/attachment.htm>