> On Sep 22, 2021, at 10:19 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 

Thinking more on this, I don’t disagree. It may be very much the case that any 
attempt to technically define the type of practice such a policy is intended to 
discourage - despite everyone having a similar mental model of what that 
practice is - is doomed to an arms race of technical workarounds and fig leaves.

As such, I’m wondering if the language we’re looking for may not be technical 
language, but in fact legal language. If you’ll forgive the anecdote, I’m in 
the process of buying a new car, and I noticed language that gives the dealer 
the right to cancel the sale if the dealer believes that it is being made “with 
an eye towards resale, or otherwise in bad faith”. This, IMO is fuzzy enough 
that it gives the dealer quite a bit of discretion to see through technical 
workarounds, while keeping organizations that are not engaged in leasing 
reasonably safe from finding themselves on the wrong side of a technical 
definition of the practice.

Modifying Fernando’s suggested language, I’d think something like the following 
could be viable:

"No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted to issue addresses to customers who, 
in ARIN’s belief and discretion, are not contracting for a bona fide 
connectivity service that makes use of the allocated addresses.”

Does that sound unreasonable?

-C
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to