[arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question
Ron Grant
ron+arin-ppml at balansoft.com
Tue May 9 00:22:32 EDT 2023
Have you looked at the waitlist lately? it's pretty long. Will take
quite a while, and you might get a /24. Can't get anything higher than a
/22, and that only if you lie through your teeth about your justification.
It just doesn't strike me as something that's going to materially affect
anybody, not even the people on the waitlist.
But I still agree that amending the waitlist "Terms" to specifically
exclude leasing would not be a bad thing - after all we also exclude
transfers.
As for the general market, as David says, that horse has sailed. There
is leasing, it's not going away, nobody has so far outlawed it, that's a
separate subject.
I know one client who leases addresses to people ON THE WAITLIST so they
can get their businesses working while WAITING for their "free"
addresses. That sounds to me like a net positive....maybe by the time
they get their 'freebie' they'll need BOTH blocks and that's a great thing.
On 2023-05-08 7:07 p.m., David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> It’s easy you you and me to say someone else would be better off
> buying a /24 at ~$10K on the transfer market, than leasing it from
> their transit provider or a third party. I tend to agree with that,
> but it’s not my money, so maybe my opinion doesn’t matter.
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 20:36 Michael B. Williams
> <Michael.Williams at glexia.com> wrote:
>
> 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> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:Email%3Afarmer 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 <mailto:Email%3Afarmer 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
>
> --
> ===============================================
> 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.
--
Ron Grant
Balan Software/Networks
Network Architecture & Programming
604-737-2113
ca.linkedin.com/in/obiron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20230508/aefc248f/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list