Have you looked at the waitlist lately? it's pretty long. Will take
quite a while, and you might get a /24. Can't get anything higher than a
/22, and that only if you lie through your teeth about your justification.
It just doesn't strike me as something that's going to materially affect
anybody, not even the people on the waitlist.
But I still agree that amending the waitlist "Terms" to specifically
exclude leasing would not be a bad thing - after all we also exclude
transfers.
As for the general market, as David says, that horse has sailed. There
is leasing, it's not going away, nobody has so far outlawed it, that's a
separate subject.
I know one client who leases addresses to people ON THE WAITLIST so they
can get their businesses working while WAITING for their "free"
addresses. That sounds to me like a net positive....maybe by the time
they get their 'freebie' they'll need BOTH blocks and that's a great thing.
On 2023-05-08 7:07 p.m., David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
It’s easy you you and me to say someone else would be better off
buying a /24 at ~$10K on the transfer market, than leasing it from
their transit provider or a third party. I tend to agree with that,
but it’s not my money, so maybe my opinion doesn’t matter.
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 20:36 Michael B. Williams
<[email protected]> wrote:
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]> <mailto:[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]
<mailto: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] <mailto: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
--
===============================================
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.
--
Ron Grant
Balan Software/Networks
Network Architecture & Programming
604-737-2113
ca.linkedin.com/in/obiron
_______________________________________________
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.
