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
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
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,
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
On 08/05/2023 21:54, David Farmer wrote:
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
Fernando,
You are using a very technical definition of leasing, and at least
historically you are correct.
However, with IPv4 runout the market place has changed significantly.
For example, I recently worked on a national scale RFP for the research and
education community, as part of it we asked
their ASN BGP.
From: "Fernando Frediani"
To: "William Herrin"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 6:23:01 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing
Question
Hi Willian. A customer who holds an ASN and is a ARIN mem
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:22 PM Fernando Frediani wrote:
> 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.
You are 100% guaranteed to lose that fight. Don't tie address leasing
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.
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:26 PM Fernando Frediani 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
Hello Willian
It is that very difficult to differentiate a scenario where a final
customer receives a block allocation in order to have their Internet
service working with that connectivity provider. That has never been a
problem.
Another thing which many here are targeting about IP leasing
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:05 PM Noah wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2023, 22:19 William Herrin, wrote:
> We are all aware that ISPs are generally LIRs and as such,
> their downstream endusers/customers often time get assigned
> small blocks like /24 based on need ontop of the connectivity
> services they
On 08/05/2023 19:05, Noah wrote:
Good.. and the RIR system and only the RIR must handle the
management and distribution based on need of IP resources and not a
3rd party entity that the community does not even recognize.
Totally ! That´s a fundamental point !
IP Leasing undermines the
On Mon, 8 May 2023, 22:19 William Herrin, wrote:
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:46 AM Noah wrote:
> > Firstly, leasing should never be an option. Its an idea that the
> community has rejected the leasing IPv4 for a very long time and often led
> to mix reactions.
>
> Hi Noah,
>
> Never say never.
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:46 AM Noah wrote:
> Firstly, leasing should never be an option. Its an idea that the community
> has rejected the leasing IPv4 for a very long time and often led to mix
> reactions.
Hi Noah,
Never say never. The community has long permitted ISPs to authorize a
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:32 AM Fernando Frediani wrote:
> You can only lease what you own.
You've never heard of subletting?
> IP leasing is an attestation that the resource holder doesn't justify for
> those resources anymore, therefore they should be revoked and assigned to
> someone else
On Fri, 5 May 2023, 18:54 WOOD Alison * DAS,
wrote:
> Good morning PPML!
>
>
>
> I would like community feedback on the leasing of ip space that is
> obtained from the waitlist.
>
Firstly, leasing should never be an option. Its an idea that the community
has rejected the leasing IPv4 for a very
Noah very well said, and I completely agree!
Capitalism decided otherwise... The business model changed the day IP
brokers realised they could earn a living by sitting in their couches,
running no useful IP-based network and thereby undermining the
community-based RIR system role and long-standing
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 2:33 PM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
> You can only lease what you own.
>
Is there any such thing as ownership?... My understanding has always been
that resource members agreed to sign agreements with an RIR to become a
member so that they can be afforded INR based on need to
+1
Completely agree with this.
Michael
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 07:33 Fernando Frediani wrote:
> You can only lease what you own. What people are trying to do here is
> pretend they own the resources and earn money with an asset they don't own
> despite everything that what IP addresses have
You can only lease what you own. What people are trying to do here is
pretend they own the resources and earn money with an asset they don't
own despite everything that what IP addresses have always meant for.
IP leasing is an attestation that the resource holder doesn't justify
for those
Pitch perfect points herein:
- Transfer market already successful
- Avoids a "highly litigious reclamation process"
- Leasing is a natural evolution of the Transfer process
- Section 12 allows both for a reclamation due to misuse, and for a
green light after 5 years.
I withdraw my initial "can
bject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question
In my opinion, the 60-month probation on transfers in section 4.1.8 is intended
to prevent immediate monetization through the transfer market of IPv4 resources
obtained from the waiting list. Allowing the leas
I’m no lawyer, but 501c14s, state chartered credit unions, and 501c6s,
business leagues and how ARIN is organized, have significantly different
purposes and rules. Could ARIN auction the waiting list resources, maybe,
but it’s likely to be the cause for a significant review by the IRS. With
such a
Hi David,
> David Farmer wrote :
> Suggestions that ARIN should instead auction the waiting list resources,
> while seemingly logical, given
> the success of the transfer market, nevertheless seem incompatible with
> ARIN's not-for-profit status.
I have to disagree with that. I work for a
How on earth people are still considering such an absurd ? From time to
time it seems that some people take turns in trying make IP leasing
looks a normal thing, an acceptable using the same excuse that "the
market already accepted" and throwing in the bin that IP addresses are
for those who
In my opinion, the 60-month probation on transfers in section 4.1.8 is
intended to prevent immediate monetization through the transfer market of
IPv4 resources obtained from the waiting list. Allowing the lease of IPv4
resources obtained from the waiting list prior to the end of the 60-month
> Michael B. Williams wrote :
> Quite frankly, if this model were adopted with no waitlist, it would not be
> surprising if a venture
> capital fund came in and just started buying IP space to reduce supply and
> control the price.
They don’t need the suppression of the waiting list for that.
Does ARIN actually have policies that allow them to reclaim space for
any reason other than non-payment of fees?
Hmmm, apparently they do, in section 12 of the NRPM. It looks pretty
straightforward, that is to say it would be extremely difficult to
wiggle around it.
That being the case, I
+1
On Sun, 7 May 2023, Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML wrote:
I disagree. While the waitlist may help companies offer competitive services
for their product lines, it should not be the "product" itself. I.e. the
offering of IP services should be coupled with the actual offering of
services.
The problem is that some genuine market participants may be unable to
afford the market rate, thus stifling potential market entry or innovation.
I am not necessarily against this idea as long as there are appropriate
ways to preserve market entry for new entrants without. I am not
necessarily
> William Herrin wrote :
> We could also just eliminate the waitlist. That's my preferred solution. When
> addresses become available for allocation and assignment,
> have ARIN contract one of the IP brokers to sell it per the in-region
> specified transfer rules. No free addresses, no incentive
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 11:22 AM Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
> The waitlist should not be designed for companies simply to make money by
> "waiting" in line as a spot holder than reselling the IP addresses.
We could also just eliminate the waitlist. That's my preferred
solution.
Dear ARIN Friends,
Could we expect the adoption of 240/4 for unicast use? There were
proposals, yet do you know this is treated seriously?
It would be a step back regarding the adoption of ipv6, yet the use of such
a block for NAT64 use would be beneficial for all.
There is an issue of hardware
And while I ALSO agree with this sentiment, I think that the ship has
sailed on the whole question of "what can people do with their IP
address space". You say it yourself - if you start to insist on people
not leasing their waitlist-obtained resources, why not just ban leasing
altogether? But
Oh, I totally agree with you!
I just think it'd be hard to enforce.
On 2023-05-07 11:22 a.m., Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML wrote:
I disagree. While the waitlist may help companies offer
competitive services for their product lines, it should not be the
"product" itself. I.e. the
I disagree. While the waitlist may help companies offer
competitive services for their product lines, it should not be the
"product" itself. I.e. the offering of IP services should be coupled with
the actual offering of services.
To point, if companies offer connectivity-related services, such
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 7:37 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
> There are plenty of factual ways to write up a justification that would pass
> muster in policy for leasing as leasing with connectivity and without are
> essentially indistinguishable absent voluntary disclosure.
Hi Owen,
As there are
> On May 7, 2023, at 07:08, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 5:32 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
>> That isn’t a technical need for the addresses.
>
> Neither is registering addresses so you can lease them. A financial
> need maybe, but not a technical one.
>
>> So as a matter of
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 5:32 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> That isn’t a technical need for the addresses.
Neither is registering addresses so you can lease them. A financial
need maybe, but not a technical one.
> So as a matter of fact, it is prohibited by policy, not just convention.
Your words.
That isn’t a technical need for the addresses. So as a matter of fact, it is
prohibited by policy, not just convention.
Owen
> On May 5, 2023, at 15:37, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 2:30 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Nobody should have been denied addresses based on
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 2:30 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Nobody should have been denied addresses based on convention. Address denial
> should have been rooted in policy.
Owen,
I defy you to show me the policy which says I can't have a /22 based
on the use justification that I'm going to write
> On May 5, 2023, at 13:45, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 12:54 PM Dustin Moses wrote:
>> Also, I don’t see anywhere in the existing NRPM where an leasing is defined.
>> If there was new policy added to address this related to waitlist Ips in
>> section 4.1.8, leasing
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 12:54 PM Dustin Moses wrote:
> Also, I don’t see anywhere in the existing NRPM where an leasing is defined.
> If there was new policy added to address this related to waitlist Ips in
> section 4.1.8, leasing would also need to be defined additionally in the
> NRPM,
-allocation usage for the
first time.
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Dustin Moses
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 12:28 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group
According to ARIN policy, the maximum allocation size an organization can get
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 8:54 AM WOOD Alison * DAS
wrote:
> I would like community feedback on the leasing of ip space that is obtained
> from the waitlist.
Kill it and burn it with fire.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
Per NRPM 4.1.8: "...Address space distributed from the waitlist will not
be eligible for transfer, with the exception of Section 8.2 transfers, for
a period of 60 months..."
Despite this policy not explicitly covering leasing the space, I think the
same sentiment applies: One joins the waiting
I completely agree!
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 1:21 PM John Santos wrote:
> Totally against. This violates the principle of "justified need". It is
> rent-seeking.
>
> On 5/5/2023 11:54 AM, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:
> > Good morning PPML!
> >
> > I would like community feedback on the leasing of
Totally against. This violates the principle of "justified need". It is
rent-seeking.
On 5/5/2023 11:54 AM, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:
Good morning PPML!
I would like community feedback on the leasing of ip space that is obtained from
the waitlist. Please let me know what you think and if a
. Williams)
--
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 15:54:17 +
From: WOOD Alison * DAS
To: "arin-ppml@arin.net"
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing
Question
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=&quo
I'd go a step further even to say there should be an explicit policy
statement *against* the leasing of IP space from entities who obtain IP
space from the waitlist. Even further, if an entity obtains IP space from
the waitlist, it should have to attest that they are not leasing its IP
space to
Are you asking if an entity were to obtain IP space from the waitlist,
should they be permitted to lease it to someone else? My answer is a
resounding no. That defeats the whole purpose of the waitlist. Entities
should not be encouraged to hoard IP space because ARIN will subsidise the
cost,
Good morning PPML!
I would like community feedback on the leasing of ip space that is obtained
from the waitlist. Please let me know what you think and if a policy proposal
would be warranted.
Thank you!
-Alison
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this
53 matches
Mail list logo
