> On Nov 3, 2019, at 14:28 , Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:30 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto: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.
I do not want to see policy that allows someone to come to ARIN and say “I want to buy a /16 from X and my need is that I wish to lease it to Y (or A..Q or whatever). I don’t mind if an organization that already has address space wishes to lease it with or without connectivity. That seems perfectly valid to me. > Feels like it is more sensible to allow the both to demonstrate use as a > justification and let ARIN process sort it out. How do you evaluate a justification that consists of “I want to buy 4 /8s and then lease them as /24s. I expect to have enough customers to lease at least 2 /8s worth over the next 24 months.”? My issue with the idea of transfers to people intending to become IPv4 landlords is that I believe it is much harder to distinguish a business plan for being a lessor from fiction than it is to make the same evaluation against a network operator who has to possess at least some tangible operational equipment, etc. I think such a policy invites relatively large scale fraud using an even simpler process than what was used in the recent waiting list scams. Owen
_______________________________________________ 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.
