Owen -
Leasing being part of the "economic reality of IPv4 for the foreseeable
future” is orthogonal to the ARIN registry – i.e. such an occurrence does not
necessarily mean that ARIN should do either of:
a) Issue additional IPv4 resources via the wait-list policy to
parties for the purpose of leasing to others absent connectivity services
b) Take into consideration a purported need based on IPv4
leasing to others (absent connectivity services) when assessing the validity of
an 8.3/8.4 transfer request
It would be good to hear clear arguments on why each of the above
changes is warranted; i.e. what is the specific benefit to the ARIN community
would be achieved as result.
(I have no view either way on the merits of the proposed policy, but
believe the community should have as much clarity as possible on desired policy
outcomes.)
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
> On 20 Mar 2022, at 7:25 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml@arin.net>
> wrote:
>
> Leasing involves a contract for services, just like an ISP.
>
> It’s no more arms length than leasing addresses to someone you sell
> connectivity to, you have a nearly identical contractual relationship.
>
> In fact, many ISPs charge for former customers to retain their addresses
> after they terminate their connectivity. How does that differ from a company
> which leases addresses without connectivity?
>
> I’m currently neither in favor of nor opposed to the proposed policy as
> written. I think it needs work before it’s ready to be a policy.
>
> However, I am in favor of formalizing the practice of leasing in policy since
> it is the economic reality of IPv4 for the foreseeable future, whether it is
> formalized in policy or not.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Mar 18, 2022, at 16:13, Michael Peddemors <mich...@linuxmagic.com> wrote:
>>
>> I oppose..
>>
>> This removes ARIN's governance of IPv4 resources completely. And in a worst
>> case scenario a single party could buy up all of the IPv4 resources in
>> theory, and effectively control the internet.
>>
>> "Leasing" is for to wide of a definition, and needs to be better described
>> before even considering this.
>>
>> "leasing" is not a usage, IMHO in terms of the original mandate of ARIN,
>> without a fixed customer base for services (eg, it could be said every ISP
>> leases IPs to their customers) which is very different than saying we rent
>> the IP(s) to arm's length parties.
>>
>> On 2022-03-17 17:23, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>>> Actually, they’d be doing all of the same things any other LIR does with
>>> the exception of providing bandwidth and connectivity services.
>>> They’d still be responsible for getting a reasonable justification from the
>>> customer, validating that justification, registering the addresses properly
>>> in whois, etc.
>>> It might be a bit less overhead than being an ISP, but ISPs are
>>> increasingly short on IPv4 addresses and asking customers to get their own.
>>> Many customers are unable to make the capital outlay necessary to purchase
>>> the addresses they need, but do have the cash flow to support a lease.
>>> Many customers have a desire not to take the risk of a large capital outlay
>>> for a necessary component which may abruptly lose its value in the near to
>>> medium term.
>>> This situation will only get worse as the cost of IPv4 addresses continues
>>> to rise and as IPv6 deployment continues.
>>> Owen
>>>> On Mar 17, 2022, at 16:28 , Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca
>>>> <mailto:hol...@pigscanfly.ca>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wait so some company could come to ARIN and ask for a block of IP
>>>> addresses using leasing as the justification and then turn around and
>>>> lease them.
>>>>
>>>> What value is the leasing company providing? It seems like a solid way to
>>>> get a bunch of LLCs formed to acquire IP addresses from the waiting list
>>>> and then make money for doing ~nothing.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dul <andrew....@quark.net
>>>> <mailto:andrew....@quark.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The draft policy as currently written does not provide any
>>>> additional limits against speculation. As drafted, it allows any
>>>> organization (including those who do not operate networks) to
>>>> obtain IPv4 addresses for the purpose of leasing.
>>>>
>>>> With that policy change what types of limits does the community
>>>> think would be needed?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Andrew
...
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
