On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Bootp, AAA, dhcp? MSO, MNO? Been happening for a long time already.
pardon, we are talking about leasing to someone not operating a network,
hence the "non-connected systems in the draft title".
nobody has a problem with upstream provided addresses via a standard dhcp
"lease".
Admittedly, this is a twist. However, its a cost saving measure for those
who need it and have a real use.
How is this cheaper than addresses provided by upstream? Granted, it can
be costly to roll your own routing infrastructure on addresses allocated
to you from the RIR, particularly if you don't have the technical chops to
do it yourself. That said, you are going to have to announce your
"leased" address space somehow anyway.
Cost wise, its effective. While I agree
the business model may be less desired to some, the outcome is legit.
The question could be about accurate tallying of utilization.
Best,
-M<
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 17:58 scott <sc...@solarnetone.org> wrote:
IMHO, we should do everything we can to prevent "internet
landlords."
Further, I do not see a legitimage use case problem that is
solved by
allowing leasing that is not solved by upstream provided
address space, or
barring that, 4.10 of the NRPM. If we want to enable spammers,
attack
networks, and other bad actors, then leasing is for sure a
great solution
for them, and the "internet slumlords" that would provide their
resources.
Scott
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:30 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
wrote:
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
> However, what I do not want to see is a situation where
we
> permit the desire to lease space as a justification for
> obtaining space through the transfer market (or
> any other mechanism). If you want to leas space you already
have,
> then fine. But the desire to lease space in and of itself
should not
> qualify as “utilization” or
> “need” in evaluation of any form of resource request.
>
>
>
> Needs a little more clarify for me. Either the lessor or
lessee has a right
> to use the numbers as justification? The lessee may be the
logical party,
> but seems less likely to be in the transfer market. However,
if they are
> leasing numbers they may have legitimate need. On the other
hand, if a
> lessor has a ratio like an ISP or other provider using
numbers in an
> aggregated manner _and_ the lessee can't use the lease as
justification for
> transfers, that would seem to be inline with current
practice. I do think
> legitimately "in use" addresses should be eligible for "need"
credit. Isn't
> the idea that "access" is being facilitated by providing the
numbers? You
> can use RFC 1918 address space as a justification for need
and the numbers
> are technically "not connected". I'm thinking source nor
business model
> should matter, but that we're careful who is getting credit
for them. Just
> saying that made me wonder if this is even worth addressing.
>
> Feels like it is more sensible to allow the both to
demonstrate use as a
> justification and let ARIN process sort it out.
>
> $0.02
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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.
