On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:38 AM Chris Woodfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Fernando - I would support language similar to what you’ve proposed, as it > explicitly requires the address allocation to be part of a connectivity > service. > > The trick then would be to make sure organizations can’t do it the other way > around; I’m reminded of a nightclub I used to frequent that held a restaurant > license, which only allowed them to serve alcohol as part of a order for > food. As such, customers did not order drinks, they would buy a packet of > peanuts that happened to be served with an alcoholic beverage alongside. > > Let’s make sure that with this language, we don’t suddenly see an influx of > “VPN Providers” who happen to be routing /24 or larger blocks to each of > their customer’s tunnels.
Hi Chris, As I noted in a recent thread, there's no language you can write which will prevent that from happening. The service provider can just bump it one step further back. "Oh, we can't provide a VPN? Okay, we don't. We do BGP with the customer's virtual server and what they do with it is not for us to say. Oh, we can't provide the virtual server or have to police the customer's use?Tell that to Amazon before you hassle us. Good luck." However, just because we can't prevent something doesn't mean we have to legitimize it and make it easy for the folks who want to be high-price mini-ARINs. And if the status quo has become unstable due to the price of IP addresses, I'd rather see the policy moved away from leasing addresses for use with BGP rather than moved toward it. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ 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.
