Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On 21 Mar 2022, at 7:29 PM, John Curran mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote: On 21 Mar 2022, at 7:13 PM, Jay Hennigan mailto:j...@impulse.net>> wrote: On 3/21/22 16:03, Mike Burns wrote: Hi Martin, We once saw an ipv4 block included among hardware as part of a third party lease. That happened

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On 21 Mar 2022, at 7:13 PM, Jay Hennigan mailto:j...@impulse.net>> wrote: On 3/21/22 16:03, Mike Burns wrote: Hi Martin, We once saw an ipv4 block included among hardware as part of a third party lease. That happened years ago and really was a one-off. Generally nobody will recognize IPv4

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Jay, The Spamhauses of the world don't allow infinite lather rinse repeat cycles. Regards, Mike On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:13:49 -0400 j...@impulse.net wrote On 3/21/22 16:03, Mike Burns wrote: > Hi Martin, > > We once saw an ipv4 block included among hardware as part of a third >

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On 3/21/22 16:03, Mike Burns wrote: Hi Martin, We once saw an ipv4 block included among hardware as part of a third party lease. That happened years ago and really was a one-off. Generally nobody will recognize IPv4 blocks as assets. That leaves leasing-out addresses by incumbent address

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Martin, We once saw an ipv4 block included among hardware as part of a third party lease. That happened years ago and really was a one-off. Generally nobody will recognize IPv4 blocks as assets. That leaves leasing-out addresses by incumbent address holders as the only effective financing

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 10:42 Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:47 PM Scott Leibrand > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:39 PM Mike Burns wrote: >> >>> Hi Scott, >>> >>> >>> >>> I am sorry, I actually penned a long reply to your initial post but >>> never sent

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

You may repeat 1000 times and still it will not become a true that when someone sell connectivity they lease IP addresses. When someone buys connectivity having an IP address is a condition for them to receive the connectivity services they are buying and the real propose of keeping IP

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:47 PM Scott Leibrand wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:39 PM Mike Burns wrote: > >> Hi Scott, >> >> >> >> I am sorry, I actually penned a long reply to your initial post but >> never sent it. >> >> The limit on initial block size is the same as if you came to

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

> On Mar 11, 2022, at 11:37, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > Scott, the point is that we should not be spending much time and should > dismiss such proposal because although it may not look like it is willing to > change a fundamental thing about IP address usage based on justification, >

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:39 PM Mike Burns wrote: > Hi Scott, > > > > I am sorry, I actually penned a long reply to your initial post but never > sent it. > > The limit on initial block size is the same as if you came to ARIN seeking > a block not for lease, but for your circuit-connected

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

While it has always been allowed, it’s becoming less common that LIRs are willing to do so. Many ISPs are starting to add surcharges for IPv4 addresses and in some cases, even for IPv4 service (whether expressed as a discount for IPv6 only or a surcharge for IPv4, it amounts to the same thing).

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Owen You efforts to defend brokers interests and less of community interests are curious. And that hasn't been just in ARIN which is even more curious this increased efforts. Interesting as well the conflict of "they will happen without the RIRs" and "ethical and policy compliant". Oh and

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Scott, I am sorry, I actually penned a long reply to your initial post but never sent it. The limit on initial block size is the same as if you came to ARIN seeking a block not for lease, but for your circuit-connected customers. To wit, ARIN will require more than just your statement.

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

> On Mar 18, 2022, at 7:37 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > >  > Hi Owen, Andrew, and Scott, > > Transfer approval of a larger-than-minimum block size requires detailed > documentation of the use of at least 50% of the block in 24 months, and that > detailed documentation must be officer-attested.

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Owen, Andrew, and Scott, Transfer approval of a larger-than-minimum block size requires detailed documentation of the use of at least 50% of the block in 24 months, and that detailed documentation must be officer-attested. I’m sure we all agree that nobody can approach ARIN for a large

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

I favor the kind of limitations Scott has expressed. I was commenting on the arguments made by Fernando and have not yet had the bandwidth to review the actual policy text in detail. Owen > On Mar 17, 2022, at 16:17 , Andrew Dul wrote: > > The draft policy as currently written does not

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

One of the goals of ARIN when it was founded was to further the Internet. If leasing does that then it should be allowed. Seems like all these rules that have the effect of restricting the Internet should be removed and rules that further the Internet should be allowed. As I think leasing does

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Exactly, that's the main point about how absurd the idea of leasing it, in any form. I fell that some people sometimes are able to only look at a particular scenario that he/she being involved once or few times and believe that is the scenario for everybody else in order to justify leasing,

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

+1 to both Owen and David Farmer's comments. Leasing IPv4 space is likely the best solution for some networks that need those addresses to operate their network. If an organization wants to acquire and lease out IPv4 space without providing bundled IPv4 transit, that should be allowed by policy.

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

> On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi John, These days it's pretty hard to find an LIR who will bundle a substantial number of addresses at no additional charge with a circuit, and that's assuming they have the addresses available to bundle.  With IPv4 scarcity, we more often see an LIR client request, say, an /18, and

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:38 AM Mike Burns wrote: > I understand there are ways to effectively circumvent ARIN policy through > legal relationships. Hi Mike, You misunderstand me. The legal relationship I described does not circumvent ARIN policy. Rather the opposite - it brings your desired

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

+1 I support this as well Steven Ryerse President srye...@eclipse-networks.com | C: 770.656.1460 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338 [A picture containing drawing Description automatically

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Scott, the point is that we should not be spending much time and should dismiss such proposal because although it may not look like it is willing to change a fundamental thing about IP address usage based on justification, something that doesn't require to much debate such obvious it is.

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Scott, Thank you, I wrote a response to your initial post that centered on the market and the current leasing returns, which I would put at roughly a 12% rental return on investment, or 100 months of payments equals one address purchase. I would like to point out that prices in the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Brian, But the addresses will be used to build and operate networks, or they could not be used as justification. Where are the cost and fairness issues? Even if a lessee could justify a purchase, that doesn’t mean they can afford a purchase. Which is fairer, to deny them addresses or

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

It seems that lots of people oppose this policy based on their assumptions about what it will do to the economics of the IP address transfer market, but no one is making those assumptions explicit or describing what exactly they think would happen if it were passed. Right now

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Bill, I understand there are ways to effectively circumvent ARIN policy through legal relationships. But it's just simpler to create a thin VPN or to operate out of the RIPE RIR. My point is that ARIN policy doesn't prevent leasing, it only restricts lessors to incumbent holders and thwarts

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

> On Mar 11, 2022, at 1:25 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > Are you saying that because investors could buy more addresses (through > demonstrating to ARIN utilization on operating networks) that would raise > IPv4 purchase prices? Because they would add demand to the transfer market? > I’m

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Brian, I am not understanding. Can you be more clear on whose costs are increased by this policy exactly? Are you saying that because investors could buy more addresses (through demonstrating to ARIN utilization on operating networks) that would raise IPv4 purchase prices? Because

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On 11/03/2022 14:56, Tom Fantacone wrote: Bill, We can quibble about semantics, but let's go with your verbiage: If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I go to ARIN and lease one?   I must either /pay someone to release their addresses to ARIN to lease to me/ or lease one

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Bill, We can quibble about semantics, but let's go with your verbiage: If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I go to ARIN and lease one?   I must either pay someone to release their addresses to ARIN to lease to me or lease one from a (non-ARIN) 3rd party. And the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Wrong. You don't lease addresses from ARIN. You receive them for used based on the justified needs and you pay an administrative fee to support the services to keep all the infrastructure necessary for the ecosystem that keeps track of those resources remain operational. This has nothing to

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

The justification that one cannot pay for something (make a proper Transfer as expected under the current policy) doesn't seem to be a valid justification to remove a essential requirement for justifying need to usage of those resources that don't belong to them. The principle of usage

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:40 AM Tom Fantacone wrote: > If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I got to ARIN and > lease one? I must either buy one on the transfer market Tom, I think you misunderstand the transfer market. You don't buy addresses on the transfer market. You

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Bill, If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I got to ARIN and lease one?   I must either buy one on the transfer market or lease one from a (non-ARIN) 3rd party. Your analogy makes some sense regarding previously allocated IPv4 space, but we are in exhaust.  This policy

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:14 AM Tom Fantacone wrote: > Bill, regarding your point "B", by providing IPv4 leasing, these 3rd parties > are certainly performing a function that ARIN does not. Oh really? ARIN doesn't charge an annual fee to retain the IP address assignment they've made? And they

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 6:25 AM Mike Burns wrote: > Are you against all renting of IPv4 addresses, and if so, why? > Or are you against only non-incumbent owners renting space? Hi Mike, I would suggest that if you really want to lease addresses without infrastructure there are lawful and

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Mike, IMHO Allowing for rent-seeking behavior increases the cost to those who are actually building and operating networks, therefore further limiting the availability of Internet number resources available for those with less funds to purchase them. — Brian > On Mar 11, 2022, at 10:09 AM,

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

I am opposed to this proposal. In fact it sound like a debauchery to try to permit leased addresses to be a valid reasons for justifying any type of allocation. It is not in ARIN interest to facilitate something that not only is essentially against the fundamental of IP usage and

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Joe, Setting up a thin VPN in not heavy lifting. This policy continues to only allow usage on operational networks to function as justification for purchase. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Joe Provo Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 7:12 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: William Herrin

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Bill, I am aware of the phrase and its freighted use. But you are using it here as an argument against a policy that would facilitate the renting of IPv4 addresses by entities other than incumbent address owners or RIPE members. So I ask for more clarity regarding the application of the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Speaking for myself, I oppose this policy if this is removed: “...entities building and operating networks…”. If you are not building and operating networks, what are the resources needed for? This policy seems to oppose the fair and impartial dissemination of Internet number resources for

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 06:23:27PM -0500, Mike Burns wrote: [snip] > For point B, this policy provides the same opportunities that > ARIN has always provided its ISP customers, to temporarily sub-assign > networks to its clients. > The only difference is these clients would not be part of the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 3:42 PM William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 3:23 PM Mike Burns wrote: > > Is rent always and everywhere a bad thing? > Just a clarification: "rent-seeking behavior" is a socio-economic term > that is at best loosely related to leasing things. For anyone not

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 3:23 PM Mike Burns wrote: > Is rent always and everywhere a bad thing? Hi Mike, Just a clarification: "rent-seeking behavior" is a socio-economic term that is at best loosely related to leasing things. For anyone not familiar with the term, I ask you to google it. The

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Hi Bill, Thanks for your reasoning.  For point A I would say the cart has left the barn and these once public resources are now effectively private resources, with different rules logically applying. Is rent always and everywhere a bad thing? We can't ignore the fact that these resources

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:24 PM ARIN 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

It sounds to me like another attempt to get around recipients needing an operational requirement to obtain resources. In other words, yet another attempt to privatize public resources and charge people for access without providing any sort of services to justify those charges. If the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

John - Can you provide a brief explanation of why you believe this potential change to policy is not desirable? (I have no particular view either way, but having some explanation of support / opposition viewpoints aids others in their consideration of the merits/concerns with

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Oppose. On 3/9/2022 11:23 PM, ARIN wrote: The following Draft Policy has been revised and retitled: * ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations Revised text is below and can be found at:

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

8.5.2 Operational Use reads: > ARIN allocates or assigns number resources to organizations via transfer > solely for the purpose of use on an operational network. If you’re going to remove that, what is to stop me from opening a new LIR and stating that I want pre-qualification for a transfer

[arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

The following Draft Policy has been revised and retitled: * ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations Revised text is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_6/ You are