I don’t believe third party leasing at a /24 or higher is in anyone’s best interest expect IP brokers and those obtaining IP resources with the intent to resell.
I’m not against portability but if a participant wants portability they’d need a /24 or higher. Aquire their own IP resources… On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 21:30 David Farmer via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> wrote: > At one time you couldn’t take your Telephone number with you provider to > provider, those rules were changed, because it was in the telephone > consumer’s interest. > > Can you consider that maybe it is in the Internet consumer’s to make some > changes to the IPv4 address leasing rules at this time. I’m not suggesting > full Internet address portability, but allowing 3rd party leasing > especially at the /24 level could be beneficial to the Internet consumer’s > interest, at least in my opinion. > > There are bigger picture issues at play in this conversation, should they > win the day, maybe not, but dismissing them out of had isn’t a good idea > either. > > Thanks. > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 20:06 Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 08/05/2023 21:54, David Farmer wrote: >> >> <clip> >> >> In my opinion, your very technical definition of leasing is an >> anachronism. The reality is if you want/need more than a /29 of addresses, >> and you don’t already have them, you will need to pay for them one way or >> another on top of your transit bandwidth, through the transfer market, >> leasing them from your transit provider, or leasing them from a 3rd party, >> this is today’s reality, like it or not. >> >> Getting it from the transit provider who is building Internet >> infrastructure and providing connectivity is fine, has always been. Getting >> from a 3rd party who is just speculating around IP space and not interested >> in building any Internet stuff not. It does not matter what reality may be >> happening in some places, if that is wrong it does not make it look right >> because some are doing and find that a normal thing because it fits to >> their commercial needs. Is Congress willing to change law to make crimes in >> the top of list not to be a crime anymore because that is happening more >> often? >> You are only authorized to trade with what you bought and own. >> >> Fernando >> >> >> Thanks >> >> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 18:23 Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Willian. A customer who holds an ASN and is a ARIN member should not >>> get IP space to announce with their own ASN from the ISP provider but >>> directly with ARIN in all cases. >>> Legal risk will always exists and it is not because it exists it should >>> not be taken, just need to evaluated and worked. >>> >>> There has been a proposal presented not much a while ago that intended >>> to get that separation better worded and which was still in the process of >>> getting feedback and improvements, but AC quickly dismissed it in a >>> questionable way despite there has been people interested in discussing and >>> improving it. A pity. There has not even been a chance to get a improved >>> text in that sense. >>> And honestly there will always be some way someone will find out to try >>> to circumvent rules and I don't think there will be a perfect text, but a >>> reasonable one that can cover most scenarios can play a important role in >>> reducing scenarios where resources can be misused. >>> On 08/05/2023 19:45, William Herrin wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:26 PM Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Another thing which many here are targeting about IP leasing >>> in the sense of renting, speculation made by those who don't >>> build or offer any Internet infrastructure and services. In other >>> words someone holding IP space and not using it to build any >>> Internet infrastructure and services. >>> >>> Hi Fernando, >>> >>> You may be missing my point. How do you differentiate in policy between: >>> >>> Scenario 1: ISP A provides a T1 and a /24. ISP B provides a gigabit >>> ethernet. Customer routes with BGP on both but depreferences ISP A so >>> it never shows up in the Internet BGP tables. >>> >>> Scenario 2: Pretextual ISP C (the defacto address leaser) provides a >>> /24 and a VPN (or virtual machine other nil-cost transit consuming >>> mechanism). ISP D provides a gigabit ethernet. Customer routes with >>> BGP on both but depreferences ISP C so it never shows up in the >>> Internet BGP tables. >>> >>> Scenario 1 is considered reasonable and has been for the entire >>> lifetime of the RIRs. >>> >>> Scenario 2 is the objectionable address leasing arrangement with a >>> tiny bit of fluff to bring it into technical compliance with ARIN >>> policy. >>> >>> >>> You can't tell ARIN to just exercise their judgement whether something >>> is defacto leasing. That creates legal risk to the organization where >>> they can't effectively act against the people they "know" to be >>> leasers. >>> >>> You have to write a policy that outright breaks scenario #2 without >>> harming scenario #1.That's the utilization count approach. ISP A in >>> scenario #1 is not particularly bothered if ARIN gets a bee in their >>> bonnet about counting that /24 utilized. So they have to be at 81% >>> instead of 80%. Same difference. >>> >>> ISP C in scenario #2, that's their entire business. If ARIN counts it >>> unutilized, they're out of business. >>> >>> Get it? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bill Herrin >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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] >> Networking & Telecommunication Services >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2218+University+Ave+SE?entry=gmail&source=g> >> Phone: 612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 >> =============================================== >> >> -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2218+University+Ave+SE?entry=gmail&source=g> > 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 contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________ 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.
