Hi David
If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there should be a
ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because it is a reality and we
kind of have to accept it in our days. No we don't, and that's for many
different reasons.
I am used to see people saying the brokers are doing a good thing for
the community by facilitating the things which in reality is the
opposite. It may look like a good things, but the real beneficiaries are
only them who profit from it without much concern of what is fair or not
to most organizations involved.
IP Leasing is very different from IP Transfer which I see not problem
they continue doing it. IP Transfer at least we have some guarantees
that the directly receiving organization really justify for them and
that is a quiet important (I would say fundamental) point to look at,
because that is fairer to everyone involved. What guarantees we have
when a IP Leasing is done in that sense, that fairness start to lack here.
People see the brokers are doing a favor to organizations in general by
facilitating they get some chunks of IPv4, but that in reality makes the
cost of IPv4 for both leasing and transfer more and more expensive as it
makes organization even more dependent from these those crumbs that seem
to be offered with good intention but in reality it is feeding a system
that is contrary the interests to most organizations involved.
It may sound a cliche but IPv4 is over and organizations must learn how
to survive with what they have, reinvent themselves and make better used
of their IPv4 resources, deploy a proper CGNAT, deploy IPv6 either they
like it or not, etc. If an organization have so little or none and need
some minimal amount is fine they seek for a Transfer of a minimal amount
with the help of brokers.
Encouraging IP Leasing as if it were something normal just "because it
exists today" is a shot in the foot that in the long term only worsens
the existing scenario, it feeds a market without much discretion
increasing final prices for everyone and what is the worst of all,
creates even more unfairness for everyone who has always submitted to
the rules we have until today for distributing addresses to those who
really have a real justification to keep control of that resource that
does not belong to them.
Regards
Fernando
On 16/03/2022 13:09, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
Yes, bundling IPv4 addresses with bandwidth is permitted, and in the
past was common practice, heck even the expected practice. However,
the fact that IPv4 address demand isn't decreasing significantly, the
costs to acquire new IPv4 addresses are increasing significantly, and
with the increasing commoditization of bandwidth, it is no longer
economically viable to bundle bandwidth, and its associated
connectivity, with IPv4 addressing. This is driving a structural
separation of bandwidth, connectivity, and IPv4 addressing, from each
other, instead of bundling them together as in the past.
Let me state that differently; ISPs are being driven, buy cost
conscience consumers, to separate the costs of bandwidth and the costs
of the IPv4 addresses needed to utilize the bandwidth from each
other. Minimally this separation is achieved by accounting for the
costs on separate line items of a common bill from a single provider.
However, price competition for bandwidth and IPv4 addresses separately
will inevitably drive a structural separation between the two.
Consumers will want the best price they can get for bandwidth and the
best price they can get for IPv4 addresses, regardless of whether they
come from a single provider or not.
Some may argue this is being driven by the existence of address
brokers, and their desire to make money, I disagree. While address
brokers making money is the grease that keeps this machine working,
the need for the machine is driven by; IPv4 free pool exhaustion, the
increasing cost of IPv4 addresses, and the lack of adoption of IPv6.
In other words, address brokers wouldn't exist if there wasn't a
demand for their services.
In short, the economic conditions that allowed for and even encouraged
the bundling of IPv4 addresses with bandwidth and connectivity no
longer exist, that world is gone. While I have not personally yet
determined if I support this particular policy text, nevertheless, the
time has come to recognize the next step in this inextricable
evolution of IPv4 address policy by the ARIN policy community and
permit IPv4 leasing.
Thanks.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:05 PM John Santos <[email protected]> wrote:
I disagree. The addresses are useless unless they ALSO purchase
access and
routing from another network operator. How is this cheaper?
It is and always has been allowed to lease bundled access of
addresses and
connectivity from a LIR, without any expense for purchasing those
addresses.
On 3/11/2022 12:13 PM, Tom Fantacone wrote:
> I support the proposal as written.
>
> It facilitates the provision of a valuable service to a large
swath of the ARIN
> community, namely the ability of network operators with an
operational need to
> lease IPv4 addresses from 3rd party lessors at a fraction of the
cost of
> purchasing those addresses. Too often we have seen network
operators justify
> their need for IPv4 space only to find that they can't afford to
make the
> purchase. They end up using CGNAT or some other sub-optimal
solution.
>
> Bill, regarding your point "B", by providing IPv4 leasing, these
3rd parties are
> certainly performing a function that ARIN does not.
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 17:46:36 -0500 *William Herrin
<[email protected]>* wrote ----
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:24 PM ARIN <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> wrote:
> > * ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes
of Determining
> Utilization for Future Allocations
>
> I continue to OPPOSE this proposal because:
>
> A) It asks ARIN to facilitate blatant and unapologetic
rent-seeking
> behavior with changes to public policy.
>
> B) It proposes that third parties perform precisely and only the
> functions that ARIN itself performs without any credible
compliance
> mechanism to assure the third party performs to ARIN's
standards or in
> accordance with the community's established number policy.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://bill.herrin.us/ <https://bill.herrin.us/>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:[email protected] <mailto:email%[email protected]>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
_______________________________________________
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 [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.
