<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">Fernando,</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I respect that you have this vision for how things should work in these cases. Both the PDP and the active community here certainly encourage and support you in submitting a policy proposal if you wish to alter how ARIN handles these. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">But please understand that your underlying hypotheses are demonstrably false in this region, and are counter to the business and engineering practices of the service providers here. It is both common and well accepted to assign small, medium, and large swaths of IPv4 addresses to a downstream who has their own ASN and announces more specifics of your aggregate. Even when that downstream has the ability to request number resources from the RIR, and even when they already have their own number resources from the RIR, there are still many good engineering reasons to also use upstream space. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Best regards,</div><div dir="ltr">David </div><div dir="ltr"><br>On May 29, 2019, at 9:48 PM, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hello Bill and folks.</p>
<p>This doesn't need to be complicated. There is plenty of
legitimate ways to assign IP space to end-users and customers that
are perfectly valid and nobody is disputing it.<br>
The scenario that matters to us is when a ASN leases its own IP
space to be announced by another given this last one has the
ability and should get them directly from the RIR. I can't see any
scenario that justifies that other than go around the system and
pass in front of others paying for it. An ASN received IP space to
assign to other scenarios different from this, not to lease to
someone other ASN announce pretending the first one is a RIR.<br>
</p>
<p>When an ISP assigns IP to end-users in a broadband connection, a
hosted server, a P2P circuit even to bring a BGP session up or
even to provide a Out-of-Band connectivity to another ISP it is
doing no more than what is meant to be done with the IPs the RIR
has assigned to him. For me is very clear the difference between
all these scenarios (and others) and the one mentioned above.<br>
</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/05/2019 22:27, William Herrin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP-guGWypZxjZSoqZC-mrd8OS6YkWz_v9ZtgrRsq06wnJ50JrA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:02 PM Fernando
Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Yeah, if someone is leasing IP addresses means that he
(the resource holder) doesn't have use for them anymore.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hi Fernando,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
To be clear, that would be a major change in ARIN policy. To
date, all ARIN policy operates under the presumption that
following the initial justified use for IP addresses, the
resource holder is free to repurpose them in any manner desired.
The holder need only justify that use again upon requesting
additional resources from ARIN, and must then only demonstrate
that his use meets ARIN requirements, not that it was used as
originally envisioned.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Also understand that ALL provision of Internet service
which includes even the ephemeral exclusive use of an IP
address includes the lease of that address. Try to draw a
distinction between leasing just the address versus
providing service and you'll very quickly find yourself
falling down the rabbit hole. Do you have to provide IP
transit with the lease? What if you provide transit but the
customer doesn't use it, he uses the transit he buys from
someone else? Is that good enough? What if the address lease
is 24/7 but the transit is not (e.g. dialup)? What if the
customer goes months without using the transit? And do you
mean to tell me that all a registrant has to do to make his
address lease kosher is offer the renter a 56k dialup along
with it?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sure, we can set a requirement that you can't lease
addresses without providing transit. But that's such a
ridiculously low bar to meet it's not worth wasting ARIN
staff resources to evaluate it. Unless we make it such a
high bar to meet that it actually impedes ordinary Internet
business. Which would be even worse.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Bill Herrin</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>William Herrin</div>
<div><a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">bill@herrin.us</a></div>
<div><a href="https://bill.herrin.us/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://bill.herrin.us/</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>ARIN-PPML</span><br><span>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to</span><br><span>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</span><br><span>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:</span><br><span><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></span><br><span>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>