My understanding is as part of this draft, the term "non connected
network" is not intended to have the meaning that normal network folks
would give it, but instead is meant to mean the organization that controls
the numbers does not offer any connectivity to itself over the numbers.
However it does NOT mean the numbers are not connected to the Internet,
since the owner has or intends to lease them to someone using them to
connect to the internet. Thus I consider the term deceptive, and the
reason the proposer does not feel RFC1918 addresses will work, is because
in actual fact the numbers ARE connected to the Internet, just not via the
network of the organization that controls that block of numbers.
In other words "non connected network" means a block controlled by someone
who leases the addresses contained within without using the word "lease".
The proposal to eliminate the "operational use" and screening functions
like RIPE is intended to allow the creation of a short term leasing
agencies that could be used by those not wanting to obtain addressss via
the transfer market, and reseling them on when they are done using them.
Those who choose to lease addresses on a short term basis is likely using
them on the internet, and may or may not be what we would consider an
abuser. Being one step removed from the RSA signer I think makes this
proposal unwise. We should allow directed transfers to go ONLY to those
who intend to put the numbers to "operational use".
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019, Brian Jones wrote:
See inline.
—
Brian Jones
NIS Virginia Tech
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:41 PM Jim <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:00 PM John Santos <j...@egh.com> wrote:
I am opposed to proposal that ARIN should in general be facilitating
entities
being able to obtain from ARIN permanent allocations made to
support temporary use for non-connected networks. It sounds like
creating an inviting environment for potential spammers and fraud, and
LIRs/ISPs should not be involved in this.
+1 The above. I am all for the wait list for those who "need" resources and may
not be able to afford them on the transfer market. I also have evidence of
address resources allocated out of other RIR's (non-ARIN) being used for
nefarious purposes here in the states. The entities they are registered to seem
to
pay little attention to any abuse complaints, so sometime entire blocks of
addresses get black listed, blocked, or otherwise ACL'led from most legitimate
network providers. The transfer market opens up a lane for this activity.
I would suggest a stance that IPv6 should be used for any new non-
connected networks being created And applicants be required to prove
that they have adequate justification for why they have existing IPv4
usage
and it is not possible to meet their unique Non-Connected networking
needs using IPv6 space and technology such as 464XLAT, and why
it is also impractical to meet their requirement using RFC1918 space.
If someone's use is so transient as to merit leasing, then perhaps ARIN
could consider offering a process for providing a 90-day allocation
from a block reserved for transient allocations for experimental use
Not a bad idea...
> Someone needs to define "Non-Connected Network". I take it to mean "a
> network that is not connected to the Global Internet." I.E. a private
Yes... Non-Connected = A standalone IP network, or it might be part of
a confederation of interconnected networks, but they choose: for
whatever reason to not be globally reachable directly over the IP
protocol.
If the Non-connected network is truly standalone, then RFC1918 space
should be adequate.
+1. If it is truly standalone they technically could use "any" IPv4 space they
wanted to... Not recommended, but just saying.
---
-Jimmy
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
