Bootp, AAA, dhcp? MSO, MNO? Been happening for a long time already. Admittedly, this is a twist. However, its a cost saving measure for those who need it and have a real use. Cost wise, its effective. While I agree the business model may be less desired to some, the outcome is legit.
The question could be about accurate tallying of utilization. Best, -M< On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 17:58 scott <[email protected]> wrote: > IMHO, we should do everything we can to prevent "internet landlords." > Further, I do not see a legitimage use case problem that is solved by > allowing leasing that is not solved by upstream provided address space, or > barring that, 4.10 of the NRPM. If we want to enable spammers, attack > networks, and other bad actors, then leasing is for sure a great solution > for them, and the "internet slumlords" that would provide their resources. > > Scott > > On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:30 PM Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > [ clip ] > > > > However, what I do not want to see is a situation where we > > permit the desire to lease space as a justification for > > obtaining space through the transfer market (or > > any other mechanism). If you want to leas space you already have, > > then fine. But the desire to lease space in and of itself should not > > qualify as “utilization” or > > “need” in evaluation of any form of resource request. > > > > > > > > Needs a little more clarify for me. Either the lessor or lessee has a > right > > to use the numbers as justification? The lessee may be the logical party, > > but seems less likely to be in the transfer market. However, if they are > > leasing numbers they may have legitimate need. On the other hand, if a > > lessor has a ratio like an ISP or other provider using numbers in an > > aggregated manner _and_ the lessee can't use the lease as justification > for > > transfers, that would seem to be inline with current practice. I do think > > legitimately "in use" addresses should be eligible for "need" credit. > Isn't > > the idea that "access" is being facilitated by providing the numbers? You > > can use RFC 1918 address space as a justification for need and the > numbers > > are technically "not connected". I'm thinking source nor business model > > should matter, but that we're careful who is getting credit for them. > Just > > saying that made me wonder if this is even worth addressing. > > > > Feels like it is more sensible to allow the both to demonstrate use as a > > justification and let ARIN process sort it out. > > > > $0.02 > > > > Best, > > > > -M< > > > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
