The ONLY antitrust issue I see being expressed in the discussion that we
have been having is that of ARIN.
ARIN has specifically positioned itself as THE source of internet
addresses within its region. That itself looks like a classic antitrust
issue by itself. Even LIR's are required to apply ARIN policy when
providing resources with their services, so that is not real competition.
When ARIN sets up pricing schedules that might be considered by regulators
to be impacting the small guy more, that is a condition that clearly might
get regulators looking at ARIN.
On the other hand, the availability of addresses from both connectivity
and non connectivity providers, including a long list of those providers
and their prices has been posted to the list. Is not the availability of
a product from many providers the thing that anti trust law is suppposed
to promote?
When ARIN council posts about anti trust issues, is not THAT an ARIN
issue? I think council should look more to the anti trust issues that
exist with the current or proposed "take it or get nothing" price policy
that exists within this region at ARIN. As members, while we have some
input by electing board members that we agree with, we have little choice
as to the current or future adopted price schedules. Our choices are
simply to pay, or do without the resources. If we operate ONLY in the
ARIN region, we really have no other source. That smacks classic
antitrust.
The primary reason I oppose leasing is that it tends to take away from the
marketplace addresses that would otherwise be available for purchase by
those who intend to put them to use in operational networks. This is
because leasing companies are willing to pay more per unit, because they
see them as an investment, and not a resource to be used in "operational
networks" like is intended by ARIN policy.
While some might not have the capital to purchase, and like the idea of
being able to lease (much like the commercial real estate market), in the
longer term, those that directly own often have lower costs overall, and
can control their future in a manner that leasing does not provide. This
is in part caused by the risk that leases may skyrocket, depending on
market conditions.
Leasing companies have been grabbing whatever addresses it can find,
forcing the market price upward for those that actually want to get more
addresses to expand their IPv4 based network. I like the idea that leases
are not counted toward need for more addresses, because "operational
networks" should get priority on all resources.
There are those who suggest the leasing companies can simply transfer the
addresses to RIPE to avoid this policy. Maybe ARIN should consider
language that prevents such transfers, if they are being made solely to
get around the ARIN policy regarding leasing. Quite a bit of discussion
of the workarounds by those promoting leasing has also been made. Just
because you can work around an ARIN policy, does not make it right.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
On Sep 22, 2021, at 11:52 , William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:32 AM Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
Every LIR is a mini-ARIN by nature, isn't it?
No. And yes. And no.
I personally dislike the term "Local Internet Registry" precisely
because it creates this ambiguity. I'd be happier if we just stuck
with "ISP."
Problem is ISP doesn’t really work when you include the myriad other
kinds of address providers that have to exist in the modern world, such
as cloud, hosting, colo, etc.
To my point of view, a network service includes IP addresses. The ISP
isn't really acting as a mini-ARIN, they're providing a network
service.
If that were true, this wouldn’t be an issue, but with various ISPs now
charging a separate per-address fee, why shouldn’t they be subject
to competition for that aspect of their business separate from their
connectivity business? Why is it ARIN’s place to shield them from
competition?
If you want to talk about an anti-trust issue, wouldn’t this be the classic
case?
When they provide so many IP addresses with the service that it
becomes a number policy concern then you could say they're acting as a
mini-ARIN. Which I think is a problem. There's a long-standing
practice of ISPs assigning /24s and more to end-users which then find
their way into the BGP table disaggregated from the ISP's allocation.
That troubles me almost as much as the folks who want to be
straight-up mini ARINs without providing network services.
We all get it that you have long thought ARIN should be the rout
aggregation police. They aren’t, and that’s not going to happen.
Can we try focusing on reality as it currently stands?
I actually did a 10-minute presentation at an ARIN meeting in Atlanta
years and years ago where I talked about forward-looking developments
in routing technology and the impairment that ISP disaggregates could
impose.
And then memory got bigger, faster, cheaper and in a few more Moore’s
law iterations, will probably permanently surpass bop table growth.
Owen
_______________________________________________
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.
