> On Sep 4, 2021, at 5:31 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Owen, you repeat this fixed idea over and over and over that LIR 'lease' > addresses exactlly the same way those who don't have any commitment to > building any internet but only speculate with IP addresses do, in a try to > justify and make it normal the last one.
I repeat these statements because despite your desire to pretend that it’s not the case, the facts of the matter are that it is identical. It is perfectly within ANY RIR’s policy if I distribute addresses to customers that are connected to me only via a GRE tunnel or other VPN. The only infrastructure required to support this would be a cloud-based VM that wouldn’t even need to be on my hardware. With that very thin fig leaf, I’ve met the test of connectivity that is required by some RIRs and I’m technically providing sufficient transit to meet the qualifications for address space. Leasing addresses to customers that use them on the internet even if they get their connectivity elsewhere does not involve any more or less infrastructure in the overall process, it just means that the supplier of addresses and the supplier of connectivity are different entities. This separation allows customers who need provider independent addresses, but can’t afford to purchase them on the open market to acquire them for a much lower up front capital cost. Yes, they pay more over time, but that’s true of virtually every lease ever written, whether it’s for network equipment, automobiles, apartments, or anything else. Whether you want this to be normal or not, the simple reality is that it is. There is a market for IPv4 address leasing and people will do it one way or another. While it can’t be used as justification for acquiring additional addresses (unless you throw a fig leaf on it as described above), that really doesn’t matter since 80% of RIRs are essentially out of IPv4 anyway. > It ia not too hard to see the enourmeous diferences between both. It’s extraordinarily hard to see them unless you use significant imagination because, in fact, they don’t exist. They are > So far you seem the only one I read repeating this exoctic idea. You are free to call it exotic if you wish, but so far, you’re the only one I see arguing that it’s not accurate outside of AFRINIC where it’s a small handful of vocal opponents. Owen > > Fernando > > On Sat, 4 Sep 2021, 21:01 Owen DeLong, <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > > > > On Sep 2, 2021, at 7:08 PM, Michel Py via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml@arin.net > > <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote: > > > >> Mike Burns wrote : > >> Let’s not kid ourselves, what happened in AFRINIC is a free-pool problem, > >> not a leasing problem. The comparison > >> of registration fees to leasing revenue in this thread is completely > >> bogus, except for the free pool. > > > > The leasing thing makes it worse, though. Instead of having the recipient > > be accountable for the use of these addresses, it shifts that to who leases > > them. It's a smoke screen. > > How is this different from any other LIR? It’s a provider-assigned set of > addresses, regardless of the financial and/or connectivity arrangement (or > not) between the provider of the addresses and the customer using the > addresses. > > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
