<div dir="auto">At one time you couldn’t take your Telephone number with you provider to provider, those rules were changed, because it was in the telephone consumer’s interest. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Can you consider that maybe it is in the Internet consumer’s to make some changes to the IPv4 address leasing rules at this time. I’m not suggesting full Internet address portability, but allowing 3rd party leasing especially at the /24 level could be beneficial to the Internet consumer’s interest, at least in my opinion.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There are bigger picture issues at play in this conversation, should they win the day, maybe not, but dismissing them out of had isn’t a good idea either.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks. </div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 20:06 Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>On 08/05/2023 21:54, David Farmer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto"><clip></div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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?<br>
You are only authorized to trade with what you bought and own.<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Thanks </div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 18:23
Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p>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.<br>
Legal risk will always exists and it is not because it
exists it should not be taken, just need to evaluated
and worked.<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
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.<br>
</p>
<div>On 08/05/2023 19:45, William Herrin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre style="font-family:monospace">On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:26 PM Fernando Frediani <a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank"><fhfrediani@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre style="font-family:monospace">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre style="font-family:monospace">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
</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" 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.</blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<span>-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">===============================================<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>
<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/2218+University+Ave+SE?entry=gmail&source=g">2218 University Ave SE</a> Phone: 612-626-0815<br>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>
=============================================== </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">===============================================<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>