<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Isaiah,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That RIPE situation is an unfortunate artifact of their reserve pool for new entrants.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Can you share the percent of those /24s that begin with 185?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You didn’t support Noah’s theory that this policy proposal would lead to the demise of RIRs, so let’s address your particular objections.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>First you wrote “The onus is not on ARIN to sanctify practices that some are already engaging in, but rather to distribute number resources in accordance with community developed policy.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My answer is that this policy proposal continues to distribute number resources in accordance with community developed policy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Second you wrote:” If other RIR communities choose to make other decisions, that doesn't make it the correct decision for the ARIN region.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I would agree with you, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore relevant data from our sister registry, and I brought up RIPE to deal with Noah’s objection about what will happen should this policy pass”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Third you wrote “There is a waiting list available for legitimate new entrants, and I don't buy the argument that networks with greater than a /20 cannot afford the capital outlay to purchase a block.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Then you won’t have to worry about leasing, because you claim there is no market for it. The waiting list is not a guaranty, and has an unpredictable schedule for address delivery. I gave an example of a WISP seeking to try out a new area, and why leasing addresses might be quite attractive to that WISP for entirely legitimate reasons. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I feel I have addressed what I see as the objections you have noted.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Now, why not try to actually address even one of my assertions and tell me where it fails?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Opposing this policy means the only lessors are the lucky incumbents. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy means a lack of policy is preferred, despite the open practice of leasing.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy provides incentive for registry-shopping and address outflow.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool and drives up lease rates.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes accurate registration”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<br>Mike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Isaiah Olson <isaiah@olson-network.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:07 PM<br><b>To:</b> Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com>; 'Noah' <noah@neo.co.tz><br><b>Cc:</b> 'ARIN-PPML List' <arin-ppml@arin.net><br><b>Subject:</b> Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>Mike,<o:p></o:p></p><p>I would hardly say it's time for a funeral in RIPE, but I would ask, do you think it's a coincidence that roughly 75% of the /24 blocks that I have blackholed on my network for spamming my email server are registered to anonymous hosting companies in the RIPE region? I don't agree that the results of the RIPE policy speak for themselves, and I would love to see more data aggregated by some of the more talented internet sleuths on here regarding the proportion of abuse activity split up by RIR. I also disagree with all five of your assumptions about opposing this policy. The onus is not on ARIN to sanctify practices that some are already engaging in, but rather to distribute number resources in accordance with community developed policy. If other RIR communities choose to make other decisions, that doesn't make it the correct decision for the ARIN region. I don't support any policy that amplifies the practice of leasing because I reject your arguments about the necessity of the practice. There is a waiting list available for legitimate new entrants, and I don't buy the argument that networks with greater than a /20 cannot afford the capital outlay to purchase a block. Please feel free to provide any data you can to back up your five assertions. For my assertion, please consider the following:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Prefixes exchanged within the RIPE region as sales originate have the highest fraction of blacklisted IPs, which is statistically significant.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p>Source: <a href="https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/139789/1/VGiotsas_PAM2020_IPv4_Transfers_abuse.pdf">https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/139789/1/VGiotsas_PAM2020_IPv4_Transfers_abuse.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p><p>- Isaiah<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 9/21/2021 3:24 PM, Mike Burns wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I am in total agreement with your sentiment and the requirement for a circuit should continue to stand.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Any policy that removes such a requirement would render the management of Internet Number Resources by the registry useless and thereby essentially lead to no need for the registry after all.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Noah<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Noah,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Are you aware that there has been no needs-test for RIPE transfers for many years and the RIR system hasn’t collapsed?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>To make it clear, in RIPE you can purchase address space with the sole purpose of leasing it out. And you have been able to do that for many years now. Plainly, openly, within all policy. So please let us know where to send the flowers for RIPE’s funeral. That goes for others who predict that bad things will follow from adopting this policy, please keep RIPE’s example in mind to provide a reality check. The experiment has already been performed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Owen has already pointed out the futility of the circuit requirement in practice, yet you think that’s what keeps the RIR system functional?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy means the only lessors are the lucky incumbents. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy means a lack of policy is preferred, despite the open practice of leasing.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy provides incentive for registry-shopping and address outflow.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool and drives up lease rates.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes accurate registration.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Let me know if any of these assertions require amplification, I guess some may not be clear but this is already too long.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<br>Mike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>