Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 17:50 , scott wrote: > > > > 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 14:28 , Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:30 PM Owen DeLong > 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:58 PM scott wrote: > Hi Martin, > > > > > 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 > >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 13:58 , Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > Owen DeLong has eloquently provided some historical context as to why > ARIN enforcement of existing rules, such as the one at issue presently, > has tended towards what might be called "light touch" regulation. > > Irrespective of th

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 13:22 , Jim wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:17 PM Scott Leibrand wrote: >> > [snip]> actually want ARIN to try to enforce. IMO the current policy > requiring only a VPN >> tunnel or unused switch port as a fig leaf to allow address leasing is >> untenable [...] > >

Re: [arin-ppml] Transparency on IPv4 transfers

> Mueller, Milton L wrote : > ARIN would not be in a position to get accurate price information unless it > actually > operated an ip address exchange, which I don't think the community wants it > to do. Thanks for your feedback. I think the community at large would be favorable, but it will ne

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

Hi Martin, 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". The point was landlords have always

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 20:52 scott wrote: > > > 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

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 address

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

Bootp, AAA, dhcp? MSO, MNO? Been happening for a long time already. Admittedly, this is a twist. However, its a cost saving measure for those who need it and have a real use. Cost wise, its effective. While I agree the business model may be less desired to some, the outcome is legit. The question

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

That's the main point. If such thing would ever becomes normal I have no doubt it would create "internet landlords" and that's one of the reasons I consider leasing a total misuse of the IP address propose. I see by the many different views of the questions and even from those who would be prepa

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

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,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:30 PM Owen DeLong 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,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

Owen DeLong has eloquently provided some historical context as to why ARIN enforcement of existing rules, such as the one at issue presently, has tended towards what might be called "light touch" regulation. Irrespective of the propriety of that approach, I feel the need to point out that, to the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:17 PM Scott Leibrand wrote: > [snip]> actually want ARIN to try to enforce. IMO the current policy requiring only a VPN > tunnel or unused switch port as a fig leaf to allow address leasing is > untenable [...] Perhaps IP leasing should be allowed, But all consideratio

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language

> 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