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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon May 8 21:06:25 EDT 2023

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.


> 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
>     _______________________________________________
>     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        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20230508/42ea6b6f/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list