Hi Martin,
pardon, we are talking about leasing to someone not operating a
network,
hence the "non-connected systems in the draft title".
nobody has a problem with upstream provided addresses via a
standard dhcp
"lease".
The point was landlords have always been here.
In a form and fashion, maybe, out of necessity. A circuit with no
addresses routed to it is not so useful. It is like buying a cup of
coffee... you want it in a cup, or it is tough to drink.
This is nothing new.
Speaking of air gaps. SIPRNet?
I doubt it is the folks operating SIPRNet who want to lease address space.
If someone wants to sneakernet, that is fine by me. RFC1918 provides all
the address space they could ever use for a non-connected network. This
policy would create a situation where people would be applying for
allocations which would then be leased out, and then likely the lease
agreements would be used as a "need" to justify requesting more address
space, from a resource that has already been depleted, and should likely
be deprecated in favor of the newer, more robust, more featureful
standard. As I said on the floor in Austin, why are we fighting for the
leftover scraps of the v4 address space? Because of an artificial
scarcity created by the marketplace. Technically, this has already been
solved. I would be happy to entertain a discussion on a timetable to
sunset v4 entirely, however.
Tried getting a /24 from a paid upstream lately?
No, but for a good long while, I paid $75USD/mo for a /28, which the
upstream used a couple of for their end of the circuit, to add insult to
injury. I was able to save a pile of money by using 4.10 to get the /24 I
presently route, and I got a /36 of v6 to go with it, all for the cost of
ARIN membership. The real solution here is to migrate to, or build with,
IPv6, which is now almost 3 decades old, quite stable, and has a
significant surplus of available address space. Oh, wait... v6 is
virtually unmonetizable, as the scarcity is gone. A single /64 can
renumber the entire v4 internet, with a bunch of addresses left over.
As long as the addresses are used in a network legitimately, I’m good.
That is the problem. Show me a "small business" (given as
justification for the policy on the floor in Austin) who cannot meet their
needs under the existing NRPM. Personally, I don't want to enable
spammers and other bad actors by making it easier for them to swap around
address space at will, nor do I want to enable those who view IP addresses
as assets to be monetized to extract profit from an unsuspecting public.
IP address space is a public resource, used to, you know, build and expand
networks with.
Scott
We
should define only who gets credit for use. Maybe.
Best,
-M<
> 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.
