On Sep 22, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > "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 > > Hi Chris, > > Have you considered that every lessee contracts for connectivity service > somewhere in order to use the allocated addresses? > > So I can lease my addresses to my lessees, they connect to another network > via BGP and advertise my block under their ASN. How would that affect your > proposed change to the RSA? Those using the addresses have in fact contracted > for the bona fide connectivity service your language requires. >
Thanks for calling out an obvious bug, I should have noticed it myself. Updated clause, changes bracketed by underlines: "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 _network_ connectivity service _provided by the signatory_ that makes use of the allocated addresses" -C > Regards, > Mike > PS Sorry John and Michael, I saw you emails and this will be the last post to > this thread. > > > Sounds like the whoosh of addresses from ARIN to RIPE. > Or a bunch of little vpn tunnels bubbling up. > Many cloud providers allow for clients to bring their own addresses and use > them on the cloud network. > So the addresses are being advertised by an ASN which is not associated with > the address owner. > This is the practice of leasing, blocks advertised through other parties' > networks. > Every lessee has connectivity service that makes use of the allocated > addresses, how else would they be used? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Chris Woodfield > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:25 PM > To: William Herrin <[email protected]> > Cc: PPML <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN > region > > > >> 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
