Hello Bill and folks.
This doesn't need to be complicated. There is plenty of legitimate ways
to assign IP space to end-users and customers that are perfectly valid
and nobody is disputing it.
The scenario that matters to us is when a ASN leases its own IP space to
be announced by another given this last one has the ability and should
get them directly from the RIR. I can't see any scenario that justifies
that other than go around the system and pass in front of others paying
for it. An ASN received IP space to assign to other scenarios different
from this, not to lease to someone other ASN announce pretending the
first one is a RIR.
When an ISP assigns IP to end-users in a broadband connection, a hosted
server, a P2P circuit even to bring a BGP session up or even to provide
a Out-of-Band connectivity to another ISP it is doing no more than what
is meant to be done with the IPs the RIR has assigned to him. For me is
very clear the difference between all these scenarios (and others) and
the one mentioned above.
Regards
Fernando
On 29/05/2019 22:27, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:02 PM Fernando Frediani
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Yeah, if someone is leasing IP addresses means that he (the resource
holder) doesn't have use for them anymore.
Hi Fernando,
To be clear, that would be a major change in ARIN policy. To date, all
ARIN policy operates under the presumption that following the initial
justified use for IP addresses, the resource holder is free to
repurpose them in any manner desired. The holder need only justify
that use again upon requesting additional resources from ARIN, and
must then only demonstrate that his use meets ARIN requirements, not
that it was used as originally envisioned.
Also understand that ALL provision of Internet service which includes
even the ephemeral exclusive use of an IP address includes the lease
of that address. Try to draw a distinction between leasing just the
address versus providing service and you'll very quickly find yourself
falling down the rabbit hole. Do you have to provide IP transit with
the lease? What if you provide transit but the customer doesn't use
it, he uses the transit he buys from someone else? Is that good
enough? What if the address lease is 24/7 but the transit is not (e.g.
dialup)? What if the customer goes months without using the transit?
And do you mean to tell me that all a registrant has to do to make his
address lease kosher is offer the renter a 56k dialup along with it?
Sure, we can set a requirement that you can't lease addresses without
providing transit. But that's such a ridiculously low bar to meet it's
not worth wasting ARIN staff resources to evaluate it. Unless we make
it such a high bar to meet that it actually impedes ordinary Internet
business. Which would be even worse.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://bill.herrin.us/
_______________________________________________
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.
