A lease policy should never exist in my opinion and registries should
stand strong against it for the simple reason that IPs are not assets or
something that belong to a company for it to lease.
Is it always necessary to remind that IP addresses are meant to be used
by the resource holders who justified for that ? If someone is leasing
it it obviously means it does not need and justify anymore for that IP
space and any RIR should recover them immediately. If such a policy
doesn't exist on its terms it should exist and should be discussed to
make it sooner.
I would recommend some Jon Postel reading to those who believe "it is Ok
to lease IPs" as if they were they very own asset as a router or a
server that you buy with a invoice and you do whatever you like with it.
This type of thing goes pretty much against concepts of conservation and
justification.
Imagine if someone asked a RIR more IP address and may justify as "I
need them in order to lease them". That's what a lease policy would walk
towards to.
As I mentioned in the other message, the fact the people do anyway and
the whois doesn't get updated is **less important** than having people
monetizing IP addresses in such way while there are others on waiting
lists that truly justify for those addresses.
Regards
Fernando
On 29/05/2019 18:02, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Robert,
The problem of leasing space before the 12 month waiting period, so as
**only** to avoid that period, is small in my experience.
After a year, any such lessor could sell if they wanted to, and they
have the same sell/lease incentives as any other ARIN holder.
Do you have evidence that people are monetizing waiting-list addresses
prior to the 12 month period by leasing them?
What you say below, however, is completely correct.
I have tried to direct the community towards the glaring absence of a
lease policy at any registry.
I believe it’s time for such a policy, given the market circumstances
we find ourselves in.
Such a policy would allow for open leasing, with certain recording
requirements for abuse contacts of the lessee, etc.
I think such a policy would be in-scope and would yield, in a negative
way, to the desired results of the anti-BGP hacking policy.
Regards,
Mike
*From:* Robert Clarke <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:24 PM
*To:* Mike Burns <[email protected]>
*Cc:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]>; arin-ppml
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after
issuance
Hello Mike,
Why are you using John's "waiting list IPv4 blocks transferred"
numbers as a baseline for the /19 numbers? This is completely
arbitrary and doesn't give any scale as to the problem with fraud. See
my earlier reply to John's email in the other thread:
"Thanks for sharing. I'd like to note that it can be dangerous to use
the blocks transferred via 8.2/8.3/9.4 as a metric for abuse. A
fraudster that gets past ARIN's scrutiny and obtains IPs with
fraudulent information is probably smart enough to lease their IPs as
opposed to selling the space outright. There is a huge market for
leased space, and those deals happen behind closed doors with no
oversight from ARIN. IP addresses go for $0.2-0.5/mo depending on
term/IP reputation/size which could lead to $XX,XXX in illicit revenue
with no risk of ARIN's scrutiny which would normally occur during the
transfer process."
Thanks,
Robert Clarke
On May 29, 2019, at 8:13 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Fernando,
Thanks for the discussion.
Many feel as you do, that unused addresses should be returned to
ARIN for subsequent distribution to those in need.
Unfortunately, that policy was not successful in bringing unused
addresses into actual use by those in need.
The community decided to harness the profit motive to incentive
this process, and by all accounts it is working.
Unfortunately the profit motive also incentivizes fraudulent
plundering of the waiting list pool.
So I am happy to discuss the correct balancing of things to
prevent fraud but allow the market to continue to drive us towards
the desirable ends of accurate registration and efficient use.
Since the /19 is the threshold number of sorts for flipping, I
could accept a /20 as the maximum size.
I think a 2 year wait is reasonable, but I don’t see the
additional benefit as worth the distinction of ARIN space into
more classes.
And making it more complicated with multiple waiting periods is
even less desirable, IMO.
Regards,
Mike
*From:*ARIN-PPML <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>*On Behalf Of*Fernando Frediani
*Sent:*Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:50 AM
*To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred
after issuance
On 29/05/2019 11:31, Mike Burns wrote:
Orgs will wait out any period, sitting with unused addresses
until they reach the resale date. Not efficient use.
If it's not a legacy resource and if ARIN gets to know about it,
it may just recover this addresses even if the resource holder is
paying it correctly. That's how it should work.
People will lease unused addresses to others and Whois
accuracy will suffer if they can’t resell them. Not accurate
registration.
If people lease they prove they have no use for the addresses and
again ARIN should recover them at any time. If whois is
inaccurate, well it is their fault and not policies fault. They
must bind to the current rules not the other way round.
I think we should give everybody currently on the list up to a
/19 and then restrict new entries to a /22.
Fair to discuss this scenario, although I still think /19 is too
much. Agree on /22 for new entries.
I think a 5 year resale wait is too long, based on the paltry
resales of prior waiting-list subnets smaller than /19.
It may be long, but 2 years seems a little short and 'acceptable'
for a fraudster. Perhaps something in between.
I support a /22 restriction for new entrants, a /19 max for
current list members, and maintenance of the 12 month wait for
simplicity’s sake.
What about discuss /22 for new entrants, /20 for current list
members and 36, 42 or 48 months for transfers ? Seems more
reasonable in my view and cover most aspects of this discussion.
Regards,
Mike
*From:*ARIN-PPML<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>*On Behalf Of*Fernando Frediani
*Sent:*Wednesday, May 29, 2019 8:51 AM
*To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred
after issuance
+1
On 28/05/2019 23:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
Mike,
Yes and no. I believe that the lack of legacy holders for
any blocks issued under 4.1.8 reduces the need for the market.
Defunct organizations can easily be reclaimed in this
space because they stop paying their ARIN bill.
Eliminating the resale value of these addresses won’t
really encourage squatting on them and limiting the size
of organization and size of block that can benefit from
4.1.8 further helps to reduce the potential for hoarding.
I realize that as a broker, any address that can’t be
monetized is a lost opportunity for your organization, but
I think there’s plenty of addresses out there that haven’t
been processed through 4.1.8, so I don’t think limiting
the resale potential of such blocks to reduce fraud is a
bad idea.
Owen
On May 28, 2019, at 12:46 , Mike Burns
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The percentages of blocks transferred takes a
significant leap at the /19 size.
Below that, the percentages are all below 7%.
At /19 and above, the percentages are all above 21%.
Seems like a natural demarcation for maximum block
size, but prices do continue to rise.
While we want to fight fraud, we should still remember
the underlying reasons for the Ipv4 transfer market
apply to these addresses as well.
That is, the market provides incentives for efficient
use and accurate registration.
Regards,
Mike
*From:*ARIN-PPML <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>*On Behalf Of*John
Curran
*Sent:*Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:53 PM
*To:*ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*[arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks
transferred after issuance
*Importance:*High
Folks -
It occurred to me that it might be useful to have a
quick summary of waiting list blocks issued and
subsequently transferred.
Attached is the distribution (count per prefix size)
of all blocks that have been issued via ARIN's waiting
list policy and subsequently transferred via NRPM
8.2/8.3/8.4 policy.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are
subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>if
you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you
experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you
experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
