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

[Michael B. Williams]

I don’t believe third party leasing at a /24 or higher is in anyone’s best
interest expect IP brokers and those obtaining IP resources with the intent
to resell.

I’m not against portability but if a participant wants portability they’d
need a /24 or higher. Aquire their own IP resources…

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 21:30 David Farmer via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>
wrote:

> At one time you couldn’t take your Telephone number with you provider to
> provider, those rules were changed, because it was in the telephone
> consumer’s interest.
>
> Can you consider that maybe it is in the Internet consumer’s to make some
> changes to the IPv4 address leasing rules at this time. I’m not suggesting
> full Internet address portability, but allowing 3rd party leasing
> especially at the /24 level could be beneficial to the Internet consumer’s
> interest, at least in my opinion.
>
> There are bigger picture issues at play in this conversation, should they
> win the day, maybe not, but dismissing them out of had isn’t a good idea
> either.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 20:06 Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/05/2023 21:54, David Farmer wrote:
>>
>> <clip>
>>
>> In my opinion, your very technical definition of leasing is an
>> anachronism. The reality is if you want/need more than a /29 of addresses,
>> and you don’t already have them, you will need to pay for them one way or
>> another on top of your transit bandwidth, through the transfer market,
>> leasing them from your transit provider, or leasing them from a 3rd party,
>> this is today’s reality, like it or not.
>>
>> Getting it from the transit provider who is building Internet
>> infrastructure and providing connectivity is fine, has always been. Getting
>> from a 3rd party who is just speculating around IP space and not interested
>> in building any Internet stuff not. It does not matter what reality may be
>> happening in some places, if that is wrong it does not make it look right
>> because some are doing and find that a normal thing because it fits to
>> their commercial needs. Is Congress willing to change law to make crimes in
>> the top of list not to be a crime anymore because that is happening more
>> often?
>> You are only authorized to trade with what you bought and own.
>>
>> Fernando
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 18:23 Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <fhfrediani at gmail.com> <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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2218+University+Ave+SE?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>       Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
>>
>> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2218+University+Ave+SE?entry=gmail&source=g>
>       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 contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20230508/81dc0717/attachment.htm>