<div dir="ltr">+1 to both Owen and David Farmer's comments. Leasing IPv4 space is likely the best solution for some networks that need those addresses to operate their network. If an organization wants to acquire and lease out IPv4 space without providing bundled IPv4 transit, that should be allowed by policy. It might be useful for ARIN policy to try to slightly dampen speculation by requiring that organizations seeking to acquire large blocks of IPv4 space demonstrate that their current holdings are being efficiently used by the organization they're registered to in whois. I am not sure if this policy proposal does that to my satisfaction, but once we ensure it does so, I would likely support it.<br><div><br></div><div>-Scott</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><br><div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div><p>Hi David</p><p>If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there should be a ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because it is a reality and we kind of have to accept it in our days. No we don't, and that's for many different reasons.</p></div></div></blockquote>Well, of course, you are free to deny reality as much as you want. Many people do. It’s not particularly helpful in the discussion, however.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><p>I am used to see people saying the brokers are doing a good thing for the community by facilitating the things which in reality is the opposite. It may look like a good things, but the real beneficiaries are only them who profit from it without much concern of what is fair or not to most organizations involved.<br></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div>You are actually mistaken here. I used to think as you do, actually. I was very resistant to the first “specified transfer” policies because of some of the reasons you describe. However, what you are failing to recognize is that:</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>+<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Brokers and specified transfers were going to happen with or without the RIRs. If they happened without the RIRs,</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>there’d be no accurate record of who was using which address space and the provenance of addresses would be</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>very difficult to support or defend.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>*<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Benefit to the community from brokers: (ethical) brokers are familiar with the rules in the RIRs in which</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>they operate and can assist their customers in accurate and compliant registration updates and</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>aid in keeping the allocation database(s) accurate.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>+<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>With the economic realities of IPv4 addresses becoming progressively more and more expensive and the advent</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>of ISPs with limited IPv4 resources available, it is inevitable that more and more IP service providers will be</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>doing one or more of the following:</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>+<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Separate surcharges for IPv4 addresses</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>+<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Expecting customers to supply their own IPv4 addresses</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>+<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Surcharges for IPv4 services</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>+<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>IPv4 “installation charges” large enough to cover the procurement of addresses</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>*<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Brokers assist ISPs and customers in many of the above circumstances.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>+<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>With a variety of organizations holding IPv4 addresses that may or may not even known they have them and whose</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>IPv4 resources may vastly exceed their needs, it is (arguably) desirable to have those addresses be transferred to parties</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>that have current need for IPv4 addresses.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>*<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Brokers provide a valuable service to the community identifying and marketing these resources</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>*<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Paid transfers provide an incentive for entities to make more efficient use of the resources they have in order</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>to monetize the resources they no longer need. Brokers are frequently able to assist in this process.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>+<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>With the high cost of acquisition, IPv4 addresses have become a capital intensive part of any network-dependent</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>business model that must support IPv4. Further, there is some risk that this capital outlay may be fore a resource</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>which will abruptly and quickly lose its value and no longer be needed well before it can be amortized as a capital</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>expenditure. As such, it may make sense for some entities to transfer that risk to another organization by using</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>a lease structure instead of purchasing the addresses outright.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>*<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Brokers that provide IPv4 leasing in an ethical and policy compliant way provide a valuable service</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>to these businesses. Yes, their price per address may eventually be more than it would have cost</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>them to purchase the addresses, but the same is true of virtually any rental situation. On the other hand,</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>that excess helps offset the risk that the lessor is taking by owning a resource that may or may not remain</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>valuable and may or may not continue to produce revenue.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p>IP Leasing is very different from IP Transfer which I see not problem they continue doing it. IP Transfer at least we have some guarantees that the directly receiving organization really justify for them and that is a quiet important (I would say fundamental) point to look at, because that is fairer to everyone involved. What guarantees we have when a IP Leasing is done in that sense, that fairness start to lack here.</p></div></blockquote>If we set the policies up correctly, we should have the same exact guarantees on a lease.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>If $ISP acquires a /10 through transfer and then issues various subordinate prefixes to their customer, the only guarantee</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>you have that $ISP’s customers who receive the addresses really justify them is that $ISP says so. We generally trust $ISP</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>to act in good faith.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>If $LESSOR acquires a /10 through transfer and then leases various subordinate prefixes to their customers, we have pretty</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>much the same guarantee with the additional bit that $CUSTOMER is at least willing to pay enough for the addresses to $LESSOR</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>to make the lease make sense. In general, I think it is somewhat safe to assume that $CUSTOMER is not going to make a</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>monthly recurring payment to $LESSOR for something they don’t intend to use. If one’s intent is to deprive the market and</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>inflate the price, then the risk profile for such a transaction is vastly more favorable if you purchase rather than lease.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Sure, there could be lessors that don’t get reasonable justification for allocations from their customers, but there are most</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>certainly ISPs in that category as well. Either way, you’ve got very little assurance. A lessor can provide just as much</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>justification to an RIR for the addresses they will allocate to leases as an ISP can for addresses they will lease to their</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>customers. The only difference is a lease with connectivity from the same company or a lease from a company other than</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>the one(s) providing connectivity.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p>People see the brokers are doing a favor to organizations in general by facilitating they get some chunks of IPv4, but that in reality makes the cost of IPv4 for both leasing and transfer more and more expensive as it makes organization even more dependent from these <span lang="en">those crumbs that seem to be offered with good intention</span> but in reality it is feeding a system that is contrary the interests to most organizations involved.</p></div></blockquote>Just as you are free to mount, balance, and rotate your own tires, or, you can go to a tire store and have them perform that service for a fee, brokers provide a service for a fee. If you want to obtain addresses in the transfer market without a broker, you’re still free to do that. Brokers are not driving the cost of IPv4… The scarcity and difficulty of operating with IPv4 is driving the cost of IPv4. Brokers are along for the ride providing a service and collecting a fee for that service. Whether that fee is reasonable or not is (and should be) entirely in the eye of the customer. Customers are always free to walk away and find a different supplier or look for their addresses independently.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p>It may sound a cliche but IPv4 is over and organizations must learn how to survive with what they have, reinvent themselves and make better used of their IPv4 resources, deploy a proper CGNAT, deploy IPv6 either they like it or not, etc. If an organization have so little or none and need some minimal amount is fine they seek for a Transfer of a minimal amount with the help of brokers. <br></p></div></blockquote>I agree. However, the increasing cost of IPv4 is a natural and organic part of that process and sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that it is not the economic reality of how the current world works will not help anyone. Not the community, not organizations that are short on IPv4 resources, and not the RIRs who are only useful so long as their databases provide a reasonably accurate reflection of the actual utilization of the address space and who controls it.</div><div><br></div><div>A broker is an LIR just like an ISP. Since ISPs are now charging for addresses independent of connectivity and bandwidth, it only makes sense that customers can shop for them separately from different suppliers. Just like you can buy tires for your car from the dealership or from some other store that sells and supports tires, IPv4 addresses are moving that way as well. The RIRs can either recognize this and adapt to it with policies that make sense and preserve some of the things you’ve outlined as concerns above, or, they can simply deny the reality of IPv4 leasing and lose track of how addresses are actually managed for some significant chunks of the internet.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p>Encouraging IP Leasing as if it were something normal just "because it exists today" is a shot in the foot that in the long term only worsens the existing scenario, it feeds a market without much discretion increasing final prices for everyone and what is the worst of all, creates even more unfairness for everyone who has always submitted to the rules we have until today for distributing addresses to those who really have a real justification to keep control of that resource that does not belong to them.</p></div></blockquote>I don’t believe that a policy that merely allows IPv4 leasing can be said to encourage it. Rather, it permits it, recognizes that it exists and is not going to stop existing just because policy pretends it can’t exist.</div><div><br></div><div>The market is not likely to be significantly swayed by policy in terms of pricing, with the exception that AFRINIC has been able to preserve a devalued price on addresses within their region due to their restrictive lack of a transfer policy for moving addresses to/from AFRINIC. However, while this has the effect of keeping AFRINIC IPv4 addresses less expensive on the open market, it also leads to a significant amount of utilization of those addresses outside of policy and quite a bit of hoarding of addresses by some of AFRINIC’s largest members. ARIN’s counsel has advised against naming names here, so I won’t, but if you want names, contact me off list.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div> <br><blockquote type="cite"><div><p>Regards<br>Fernando<br></p><div>On 16/03/2022 13:09, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>Yes, bundling IPv4 addresses with bandwidth is permitted, and in the past was common practice, heck even the expected practice. However, the fact that IPv4 address demand isn't decreasing significantly, the costs to acquire new IPv4 addresses are increasing significantly, and with the increasing commoditization of bandwidth, it is no longer economically viable to bundle bandwidth, and its associated connectivity, with IPv4 addressing. This is driving a structural separation of bandwidth, connectivity, and IPv4 addressing, from each other, instead of bundling them together as in the past.</div><div><br></div><div>Let me state that differently; ISPs are being driven, buy cost conscience consumers, to separate the costs of bandwidth and the costs of the IPv4 addresses needed to utilize the bandwidth from each other. Minimally this separation is achieved by accounting for the costs on separate line items of a common bill from a single provider. However, price competition for bandwidth and IPv4 addresses separately will inevitably drive a structural separation between the two. Consumers will want the best price they can get for bandwidth and the best price they can get for IPv4 addresses, regardless of whether they come from a single provider or not.</div><div><br></div><div>Some may argue this is being driven by the existence of address brokers, and their desire to make money, I disagree. While address brokers making money is the grease that keeps this machine working, the need for the machine is driven by; IPv4 free pool exhaustion, the increasing cost of IPv4 addresses, and the lack of adoption of IPv6.</div><div>In other words, address brokers wouldn't exist if there wasn't a demand for their services.</div><div><br></div><div>In short, the economic conditions that allowed for and even encouraged the bundling of IPv4 addresses with bandwidth and connectivity no longer exist, that world is gone. While I have not personally yet determined if I support this particular policy text, nevertheless, the time has come to recognize the next step in this inextricable evolution of IPv4 address policy by the ARIN policy community and permit IPv4 leasing.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:05 PM John Santos <<a href="mailto:john@egh.com" target="_blank">john@egh.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I disagree. The addresses are useless unless they ALSO purchase access and <br>routing from another network operator. How is this cheaper?<br><br>It is and always has been allowed to lease bundled access of addresses and <br>connectivity from a LIR, without any expense for purchasing those addresses.<br><br><br>On 3/11/2022 12:13 PM, Tom Fantacone wrote:<br>> I support the proposal as written.<br>> <br>> It facilitates the provision of a valuable service to a large swath of the ARIN <br>> community, namely the ability of network operators with an operational need to <br>> lease IPv4 addresses from 3rd party lessors at a fraction of the cost of <br>> purchasing those addresses. Too often we have seen network operators justify <br>> their need for IPv4 space only to find that they can't afford to make the <br>> purchase. They end up using CGNAT or some other sub-optimal solution.<br>> <br>> Bill, regarding your point "B", by providing IPv4 leasing, these 3rd parties are <br>> certainly performing a function that ARIN does not.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ---- On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 17:46:36 -0500 *William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a>>* wrote ----<br>> <br>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:24 PM ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a>>><br>> wrote:<br>> > * ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining<br>> Utilization for Future Allocations<br>> <br>> I continue to OPPOSE this proposal because:<br>> <br>> A) It asks ARIN to facilitate blatant and unapologetic rent-seeking<br>> behavior with changes to public policy.<br>> <br>> B) It proposes that third parties perform precisely and only the<br>> functions that ARIN itself performs without any credible compliance<br>> mechanism to assure the third party performs to ARIN's standards or in<br>> accordance with the community's established number policy.<br>> <br>> Regards,<br>> Bill Herrin<br>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> William Herrin<br>> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>> <a href="https://bill.herrin.us/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bill.herrin.us/</a> <<a href="https://bill.herrin.us/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bill.herrin.us/</a>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> ARIN-PPML<br>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>>).<br>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>> <a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>> <<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>><br>> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a>> if you experience any<br>> issues.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> ARIN-PPML<br>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>> <a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br><br>-- <br>John Santos<br>Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.<br>781-861-0670 ext 539<br>_______________________________________________<br>ARIN-PPML<br>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">===============================================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>=============================================== </div></div><br><fieldset></fieldset><pre>_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br>ARIN-PPML<br>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote></div>