Hi Mike Majority of LIR are in a position to provide IP transit circuits services to a small startup WISP which through the transit service can also enjoy sub-allocations of /24 or more at no cost beyond the IPT service.
I dont see why a small startup WISP would prefer brokers or IPv4 leasers to an LIR.! Noah On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 00:47 Mike Burns, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Noah, > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, my replies are inline. > > > > “Transfers are generally a prerogative of brokers who don't necessarily > provide any form of network services. It does make sense for a broker to > defend this model.” > > > > Noah that is a meaningless ad hominem, every transfer has a recipient. > > > > > > > “ What happens in RIPE does not have to trickle down to ARIN or any other > region for that matter.” > > > > Correct, but we can use the evidence provided by RIPE in predicting the > outcome of this policy. You predicted that RIRs would no longer be needed > and I offered RIPE’s continued existence as rebuttal. Your turn, or have > you abandoned your objection that this policy would lead to RIR irrelevance? > > > > Opposing this policy means the only lessors are the lucky incumbents. > > > > “How so, last I checked, as an LIR, we continue to sub-allocate/assign > every end-user we bring online through every circuit. For end-users who > need more than we can sub-allocate, we refer them to the RIR for such > needs. The RIR system has in place policies that have worked for decades so > well to the best interest of the community and the internet as we know it.” > > > > It means that the only leasing allowed under ARIN policy today is when > current address owners lease their addresses. Does that make my assertion > clearer? Do you still deny my assertion? > > > > Opposing this policy means a lack of policy is preferred, despite the open > practice of leasing. > > > > “There is already a policy. What do you mean lack of policy yet there is > already a policy which has worked well until you folks want to now remove > the need for a circuit so that those of you who benefit from the no circuit > based service of IPv$ can expand the scope of your business model beyond > just RIPE and provide IPv4 a much longer lifeline.” > > > > There is no ARIN policy regarding leasing, that is what I meant by my > assertion. So ARIN resource holder are free to lease out their space. By > rejecting this proposal you wish to maintain an NRPM with no lease policy > at all. I mean that’s okay, but I think it’s asking for problems. > > Opposing this policy provides incentive for registry-shopping and address > outflow. > > > > “What registry shopping. The widely known practise has always been RIR <> > LIR <> END-USER. This has worked and continues too.” > > > > Yes, this might not be clear. Companies who wish to lease address space > can purchase RIPE space for this purpose even if they don’t have an > immediate need on an operational network. So that increases demand for RIPE > space over ARIN space and provides an incentive for addresses to flow, over > time, to RIPE because addresses will flow to where the need is. This would > be a long term issue, but we should be aware that address owners do have > options in their choice of RIR, and policies favorable to owners will > provide a lure. There are already significant leasing operations based in > RIPE, drawing in addresses that could otherwise feed the local transfer > market. In their absence addresses can flow into RIPE from other RIRs. > > > > Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool and drives up lease rates. > > > > “If your business model is to profit from leasing and not the IP related > services which include connectivity, then yes. LIR who focus on providing > services and using integers as a means to do so, dont worry much about > lease rates since 99% LIR businesses are not those of IPv4 brokerage or > leasing with no service.” > > > > I am simply pointing out that prices rise when supply dips and vice versa. > By artificially limiting the pool of lessors to those who have already > received addresses they are not using, you limit the competitiveness of the > lease offers and this naturally leads to higher prices. It would be better > for consumers if there were more and not less lessors, as cumbersome as > that sounds. > > > > Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes accurate registration. > > > > “99% of LIR business models are such that LIR's provide IP related > services that require a numbered circuit. Majority of LIR around the world > follow this school of thought. > > > > Only a handful of profit minded IPv4 brokers and those who subscribe to > the IPv4 leasing business model; are into this flawed draft policy whose > aim is to profit off limited IPv4 addresses without necessarily providing > Internet based services. > > > > Worse of it is that, we have experienced purported LIR running an IPv$ > enterprise without offering any circuit based service. The entity's annual > membership contribution to the RIR is hardly $15K yet holds millions of > IPv4 addresses it hoards so that it can go about leasing them for > significant figures of $30 per IPv4 address. > > > > Noah” > > > > Please leave your AFRINIC issues outside this discussion, as we have no > free pool here to raid. And also your ad hominems about brokers. My point > is that by requiring lessors to register leases as assignments if they want > to use them as justification, we are providing an incentive for accurate > registration that currently does not exist. > > > > Regards, > Mike > > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
