[arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri May 5 17:30:22 EDT 2023

> On May 5, 2023, at 13:45, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 12:54 PM Dustin Moses <dmoses at intermaxteam.com> wrote:
>> Also, I don’t see anywhere in the existing NRPM where an leasing is defined. If there was new policy added to address this related to waitlist Ips in section 4.1.8, leasing would also need to be defined additionally in the NRPM, likely in section 2.
> Hi Dustin,
> The longstanding convention is that the ONLY reason someone is allowed
> to register addresses to be used by someone else is because they're
> also the ones implementing the network the other party uses. This goes
> back to the '90s when we were all trying to keep the BGP routers from
> exploding by preventing folks from getting provider-independent
> address blocks. It's the origin of the whole allocation / assignment,
> ISP / end user dichotomy in the public policy structure.

It might be longstanding convention in some people’s minds, but in reality, it hasn’t been fact for many many years.
Convention and policy are very different things. Convention says you try not to belch at the table (at least in US
polite society). However, nobody’s going to arrest you for it or claim you violated the terms of some contract.

> Address leasing defies that convention.

OK, you consider it unconventional. I’m not sure what that has to do with ARIN policy.

> The problem with changing the convention -now- is that it'd be grossly
> unfair to all the folks who for two and a half decades were denied
> IPv4 assignments from ARIN until, oh look at that, the IP addresses
> are all gone.

Nobody should have been denied addresses based on convention. Address denial should have been rooted in policy.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list