I don't think it was 30 years ago. ARIN wasn't in existence at that point.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 11:59 AM Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Fernando, > > > > We tried the method you’ve espoused below for thirty years and the result > were a huge amount of wasted address space. Once the market was adopted, many > of those addresses found a useful place in the routing table. > > > > This community had debated the option of aggressively reclaiming space based > on utilization review as a method of dealing with impending exhaust. The > arguments you’ve presented aren’t novel. But for many reasons this community > decided that the appropriate method of post-exhaust distribution is the > market. > > > > In fact, we didn’t even create a reserve pool because it’s obvious that the > existence of free pools alongside a market where addresses trade for money is > a recipe for corruption. > > > > Let’s not kid ourselves, what happened in AFRINIC is a free-pool problem, not > a leasing problem. The comparison of registration fees to leasing revenue in > this thread is completely bogus, except for the free pool. The salient > pricing comparison is the price of addresses on the market versus the revenue > from leasing them. > > > > The free pool era is dying, let’s put a fork in it as quickly as possible > We’ve seen the corruption engendered by the bait of the free pool in multiple > registries now, including our own. > > > > As addresses get more expensive, they sometimes get beyond the reach of the > small, the inquisitive, the entrepreneurial enterprises that have > historically thrived through connection to the Internet. Let’s say you’re a > small but growing wireless ISP. You want to open a new territory but you > don’t have the capital for routers, circuits, radios, advertising, tower > rents and IPv4 addresses. You could justify the purchase of addresses but > that would mean less money for the other stuff. Or you could maximize your > available capital and minimize risks of territory failure if you chose to > lease addresses. There are many circumstances where leasing addresses is a > valid business decision and if we want the registry to be accurate we > shouldn’t block valid business decisions through arbitrary policies. > > > > For justification purposes, if leased addresses are assigned and recorded as > if there were connectivity, those addresses should be counted utilized when > justifying more PURCHASES of addresses. Sometime I will get around to writing > a policy proposal for that and it can be argued there more exactingly. > > > > Your old-fashioned method of address distribution would get some addresses to > those in need, I will concede that. However, so will leasing addresses, with > that demonstration of need being the lease payment. Will you concede that > those who pay to lease addresses need them? > > > > Regards, > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2021 8:16 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The > Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System) > > > > Exactly, the right to review is a principle in place and if triggered the > resource holder must explain again if he still justify to maintain those > resources. > > I don't see a need to report any changes afterwards the resources were > assigned by the RIR, as long they keep being used according to the current > policies. If however the RIR call that organization for a review, they must > be able to explain themselves at anytime. This is in the interest of all. > > Now, can IP leasing be a justified need one can give to the RIR in order to > have some IP space allocated ? Could ever an organization go to the RIR and > say: "Please give me more IP space as I am going to use them to lease to > other organizations that have the ability to get them directly from the RIR" ? > > IP leasing is a real mockery to those who effectively build Internet > infrastructure and bring connectivity to people in general and those who > justify for receiving IP allocations. What is the point to pretend it is Ok > to accept it as a 'normal' practice? > If an organization is able to justify and get IP addresses allocated directly > by the RIR, accepting people's leasing practices only force organization who > really justify for those IP addresses to have to pay more pay more to a > middleman that most possible doesn't built any internet infrastructure if > they could just be paying ARIN or any RIR's administrative fees directly and > get those resources directly from there. > > Therefore if some organization who received a chunk of addresses in the past > based in a justification they had to build Internet sudden starts to lease > those addresses they should go immediately under a revocation process as they > no longer justify for them. Either they use them for the proposes they > justified or give them back to the RIR so the RIR can allocate to others who > really justify. > > Transfer of resources (even if there is a transaction in the background) is > something different and fine in the current scenario as it facilitates the > resources goes to those who really justify for them. > > Fernando > > > > Em 01/09/2021 17:35, Chris Woodfield escreveu: > > David - > > > > In addition to the RSA language John cited, Section 12 of the NRPM gives ARIN > the right to review an organization’s resource usage at any time for > continued compliance with community-driven policy. I suspect that these > reviews are not common, however. What’s more common, in my view, is an > organization’s request for additional resources, which must come with > justification that currently-held resources are being used in compliance with > policy. I do not believe that these are checked against the original requests > for consistency, however. > > > > I’d be curious if the clause below can be interpreted as giving organizations > a duty to report *any* substantial changes in an organization’s allocation > plans if they diverge from the justification filed at the time of the > request, or only when such changes would have the effect of putting the > organization out of compliance with current policy. I can see the former > interpretation being rather troublesome for a large number of organizations, > given how often business plans and environments can change over time, as well > as adding quite a bit of (IMO unnecessary) overhead to IP allocation managers. > > > > That said, I can see ARIN being quite justified in reclaiming resources if > the justification documentation filed with the request had no bearing to the > org’s actual plans. I suspect that to be the unspoken subtext of the current > controversy, and I absolutely believe that ARIN would and should act > similarly in such a scenario (which, in the past, it has). > > > > Regards,, > > > > -Chris > > > > On Sep 1, 2021, at 1:21 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > David - > > > > Excellent question. The most important item is for the community to > determine its policy goals in this area, and then based on such what > requirements/duties belong in policy language in Number Resource Policy > Manual (NRPM.) > > > > The ARIN RSA places an explicit duty of “Information and Cooperation” on > number resource holders (see below) that can be used to enforce > community-developed policy in this area, but the communities thoughts on the > appropriate policy really should drive the discussion – > > 2.(c) Information and Cooperation. Holder has completed an application > provided by ARIN for one or more Services (the “Application”). Holder must > (i) promptly notify ARIN if any information provided in the Application > changes during the term of this Agreement, and (ii) make reasonable efforts > to promptly, accurately, and completely provide any information or > cooperation required pursuant to the Service Terms or in response to any > inquiry or request made to Holder by ARIN during the term of this Agreement. > In addition, Holder shall promptly provide ARIN with complete and accurate > information, and cooperation as required by any Service Terms or that ARIN > requests in connection with ARIN’s provision of any of the Services to > Holder. If Holder does not provide ARIN with such information or cooperation > that ARIN requests, ARIN may take such failure into account in evaluating > Holder’s subsequent requests for transfer, allocation or assignment of > additional number resources, or requests for changes to any Services. > > Note that material breach of Section 2(c) is one of the events that provides > ARIN clear right of termination for the RSA and subsequent revocation of the > number resources – so let’s be extra careful when considering any > reporting/information duties for placement into NRPM. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > > John Curran > > President and CEO > > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > > > On 1 Sep 2021, at 3:47 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I changed the subject line, as this isn't directly related to the dispute > between AFRINIC and CI, but more some questions arising from it specifically > related to the ARIN registered resources. > > ---- > > > > So, do ARIN resource holders have a duty to report changes in their use of > resources? If they do, where does that duty come from in policy or contract > language? And, what are the relevant changes that need to be reported? > > > > In my review of these questions; > > > > In the RSA I see where holders are granted, "The right to use the Included > Number Resources within the ARIN database" (RSA section 2.b bullet 2). > However, I don't see any limitation to that use, such as "originally > justified" or any obligation to report a change in such use. > > > > In policy, "An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP > addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks." (NRPM 2.6), with > an exception for incidental or transient use (last paragraph, section 2.5). > > > > Maybe to align end-user requirements with the new Registration Services > Agreement we should change that so end-users have to report any use, other > than incidental or transient use, outside their organization. > > > > And ISP's have requirements to report the use by their customers that exceed > certain levels (NRPM sections 4.2.3.7 and 6.5.5). > > > > So, other than the ISP reporting requirements, I don't see direct reporting > obligations for change in use. Further, I don't see any guidance to what > might be a material change in use that is in need of reporting, as I'm sure > we don't want ARIN Staff tied up with reports of all possible changes, most > of which are probably irrelevant. > > > > Are there reporting requirements I'm missing? Maybe implied or indirect > requirement? > > > > Should something be added to ARIN's policies explicitly stating requirements > for reporting a change in the use of resources? > > > > Thanks > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
