There exist disconnected (from the Internet) networks that require unique
addressing. RFC1918 is inadequate, because conflicting RFC1918 addresses might
(and often do) exist in other private networks that are interconnected with each
other. My company has such a network, that is inteconnected with many other
networks, some private and some public (but none of which publish routes to our
network, though they often do so internally.)
This was established as a valid use case decades ago.
On 9/22/2021 2:45 PM, Mike Burns 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.
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.
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
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.
