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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon May 8 19:23:01 EDT 2023

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>  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20230508/af80706e/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list