On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:17 PM Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote: > [snip]> actually want ARIN to try to enforce. IMO the current policy requiring only a VPN > tunnel or unused switch port as a fig leaf to allow address leasing is > untenable [...]
Perhaps IP leasing should be allowed, But all consideration must be declared to ARIN, and 50% of all revenue from any lease or transfer with consideration must be paid to ARIN specifically to be dedicated to funding enforcement and fraud prevention efforts. ^_` These "Fig leafs" for address leasing sound like basically fraud. If there's a fig leaf, that's used to conceal a lack of valid justification under existent policy with intended purpose as merely a device to circumvent the policy language; its a form of fraud. At least in theory; that ought to be rejected in most cases -- just b/c there might be some allowable applications for IP space that involve VPNs, Etc; does not mean that arbitrarily creating a VPN, etc, for IP address association is not fraud. At the end of the day, any applicant can design some technical concoction which artificially requires IP addresses. I believe ARIN staff ought to be able to investigate applications for IP space and consider based on surrounding facts and circumstances -- Whether there is adequate proof that something looking like a VPN or Switch port "Fig leaf" has a well-established reason for existing with a purpose of providing primary or at least equal network connectivity to other methods of connectivity commercially available to that service. > -Scott -- -JH _______________________________________________ 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.
