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]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:24 PM
*To:* Mike Burns <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; arin-ppml <[email protected]>
<mailto:[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.
