<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>+1</p>
<p>What I am seeing by some positions are attempts to turn a
fraudulent act into "something normal" because "market demands"
and a total diversion of what IP space should ever be making look
normal a company who received IP space from the RIR and **does not
use it** rent it to someone else a ownership of a property they do
not have.<br>
And some of these attempts come from people who apparently have
high financial interests in this <span class="tlid-translation
translation" lang="en"><span title="" class="">deviation from
purpose of IP space</span></span>, but try to make it look
like it is "for the good of the Internet".</p>
<p>Trying to resume it in different terms it looks like in the
recent IPv4 exhaustion times some individuals wish to go for
"all-or-nothing" and make up rules to allow them to have easy
access to IPv4 space via a shortcut and in front of many other
people, bypassing the RIR if possible regardless how.<br>
It has always been clear to many professionals what IP allocation
by an ISP to its customers means, doesn't even need to explain
much, it is obvious, but then there are attempts to make leasing a
property they don't own something acceptable and normal.<br>
</p>
<p>We are here discussing rules for a waiting list to make it
something fair and that all can be treated in the same way, but
suddenly some see they feel "more equal than others" demanding to
have ways to access IP space in a more privileged way than those
who are patiently waiting. Strange times !</p>
<p>Shall we focus ?<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/05/2019 12:25, Jimmy Hess wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAAwwbWfYL89EM9RK9=_wkbwtVS+PpcsWuG5ejX0a2Tveyai=Q@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:26 PM Scott Leibrand <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com"><scottleibrand@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">(New subject line for a new topic.)
You just described a lease policy: one where leasing is not allowed. Such a policy would
have to exist to be enforced. Right now there is no policy, so leasing is allowed because
it's not prohibited.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Actually not. ARIN's Policy does not have to contain a specific
prohibition for every form of abuse --- The PDP describes when
IP addresses can be allocated, and any intended Usage for IP
resources that is not provided by an allocation policy should not
get past ARIN's required reviews.
An organization attempting to misrepresent to ARIN the nature of
that organization and their business, the need for IP addresses, or
the intended use for IP addresses and then after receiving an allocation
proceeding to "leasing" IP addresses without services would be fraud.
"We have no allocations but want a /22 of IP addresses, b/c we intend
to open up shop and lease /24s to qualified applicants..." should Not
and even pass muster under the current policies and required reviews
--- ISPs should in fact be able to show through sufficient connectivity
contracts, etc, that they have procured an ISP network; If they cannot, then
they are not providing Internet Services, then they are not an ISP.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">ISPs lease space to their customers all the time, bundled with IP connectivity. [...]
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
No.... ISPs provide services related to global IP connectivity and allocate
in the amount of IP addresses required for use with that ISP's services;
the IPs are not a separate thing that an ISP may offer to
others who are not current customers of their ISP business.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hosting companies do the same. So do VPN providers.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Hosting companies and VPN providers with a working network and
customers to serve are ISPs; they are in the business of providing
internet connectivity to "devices" that are owned or rented by
external customers.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> The challenge with a "no leasing allowed" policy is differentiating ....
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
There is no need to differentiate. A re-assignment or allocation
is something that ISPs do to allow a customer use of IP addresses
necessary in order to have internet connectivity
through that ISP's services OR to allocate a range of IP addresses to
another ISP who is their customer, After the allocating ISP
reviews and verifies their customer's network design and
IP address justification documentation accordingly.
You can tell if an organization is an ISP, and not "Leasing" IP addresses,
because an ISP will only allocate or assign according to justified need
respecting ARIN's required Policies and terms
regarding customers required to return IP addresses and requiring and
confirming that downstream customers adhere to required ARIN policies.
4.2.3.3 and 4.2.3.4 through 7*
"The original ISP should allow sufficient time for the renumbering process
to be completed before requiring the address space to be returned."
"ISPs must require their downstream customers to adhere to the
following criteria: ...".
A "leasing of IPs" is a fraudulent action not authorized by the ARIN RSA which
involves a holder of number resources purporting to Rent "ownership"
to property they do not have ---
that is, a block of IP resources as if those were a piece of property that
may be retained or procured by an end user organization for speculative
purposes or "in case of possible future need some down the road"
without ever actually using or having a valid justification to receive/hold
the IP resources.
--
-JH
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>