[arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question
farmer at umn.edu
Mon May 8 20:54:13 EDT 2023
You are using a very technical definition of leasing, and at least
historically you are correct.
However, with IPv4 runout the market place has changed significantly.
For example, I recently worked on a national scale RFP for the research and
education community, as part of it we asked the respondents about pricing
for IPv4 blocks provided with their DIA Internet services, consistent with
your view of how IP addresses should be provided. The responses ranged from
$1 - $5 per IPv4 address per month for midsized blocks (/28 - /26) and $.30
- $5 per IPv4 address per month for larger blocks (/25 - /21).
That a range of $600 to $10k a month for a /21, just for addresses and on
top of the transit bandwidth charges, and only half of the respondents
would even provide a block that big, the other half wouldn’t provide any
blocks bigger than a /24.
So, when I say all ISP are leasing addresses, this is the market reality
I’m referring too. The very technical definition of leasing you are talking
about has been overtaken by the facts of the IPv4 address market place.
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.
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
> 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
> 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?
> Bill Herrin
> 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:
> 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 Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML