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

> On Nov 4, 2019, at 07:11 , scott wrote: > > Hi Owen, > >>> 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”. >> >> I

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

Hi Owen, 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”. I don’t believe that’s true. We are talking about leasing to someone

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

Hi Ronald, On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: In message , scott wrote: IP address space is a public resource... A novel concept! I would appreciate being directed at the specific multiverse in which this is actually the case. I do believe that I'd like to go there, if for

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

In message <23f8704f-c807-4e5d-b8a3-947eabcbe...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong wrote: >> At the end of the day, any applicant can design some technical >> concoction which artificially requires IP addresses. > >Yes, but that’s not what we are talking about here. In reality, what we are >talking

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

In message , scott wrote: >IP address space is a public resource... A novel concept! I would appreciate being directed at the specific multiverse in which this is actually the case. I do believe that I'd like to go there, if for no other reasons, then at least to see what things are like

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

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

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

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] 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I’m not entirely in disagreement with Scott’s position, there’s a wide range between “unenforced and routinely ignored” and “trivially circumvented”. As a general rule, ARIN policy, like any other policy, including laws depends heavily on voluntary compliance with the spirit of the policy

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

If we have restrictions that are unenforced and routinely ignored, those restrictions need to be removed (or enforced). To do otherwise creates an environment where everyone is always in violation of the "letter of the law", thereby reducing respect for the restrictions that we do want to enforce.

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

In message <30dbfe0c-f444-ec1c-54ad-62460ab56...@egh.com>, John Santos wrote: >The proposal specifically relates to leasing IP addresses to recipients >who are NOT receiving connectivity from the lessor. As I said, I myself have no position on the proposal under discussion. As a general

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

ease. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Ronald F. Guilmette Sent: Friday, November 01, 2019 4:59 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language In message &l

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

In message <032f01d590f3$0417a9d0$0c46fd70$@iptrading.com>, "Mike Burns" wrote: >It's not illegitimate, particularly as you are getting addresses from your >connectivity provider, these sorts of "leases" have always been legit. So, are you saying that the reference to "legitimizing" that I was

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

Ronald - I don't think this proposal is relevant in any way to your situation. You said: "I have been leasing a pair of static IPv4 addresses from my connectivity providers for lo these many years now, ..." The proposal specifically relates to leasing IP addresses to recipients who are NOT

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

In message , Owen DeLong wrote: >However, I do not want to see ARIN accepting "We're >acquiring more space in order to lease it out later" as a valid >reason for approving a transfer into an organization. I think that >legitimizing such transactions only creates additional incentives to

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

The discussion is about leases absent connectivity services. Leasing with connectivity services is permitted under current policy. Owen > On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette > wrote: > > Fernando Frediani wrote: > >> I do not agree that legitimizing leasing as such increases

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

M To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks - Clarifying Language Fernando Frediani wrote: >I do not agree that legitimizing leasing as such increases >accessibility to >IPv4 space. I personal

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

Fernando Frediani wrote: >I do not agree that legitimizing leasing as such increases accessibility to >IPv4 space. I personally have no position on the proposal under discussion. I am only posting to say that I have been leasing a pair of static IPv4 addresses from my connectivity providers

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

Albert said: In the case of IP address leasing, the only major users of short term leases are abusers. HI Albert, Care to share on your source for the assertion above? Regards, Mike ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are

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

I don't think the problem is only the language but the main point which it implicates in the whole ecosystem. I agree with Owen's point that the solution to those who cannot transfer is a combination of IPv6 and NRPM 4.10. In other RIRs there are, in my view, very successful and fair policies

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

I don’t entirely agree with this characterization. In business, there is often a benefit to conserving cash up front even if it costs more capital over the long run. This is true of virtually every business lease and if it weren’t true and/or valid, there wouldn’t be so many companies

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

In my opinion, it makes sense to allow leasing if we require that addresses only be (re-)assigned to organizations who'll be using them on an operational network. I think we're looking for language something like: *ARIN allocates or assigns number resources to organizations via transfer for the

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

The more I think about this proposal, the more disturbed I am by the following concept… I do not think we should be building policy to facilitate the creation or expansion of “IPv4 landlords”. If an organization wishes to monetize its existing space through leasing rather than sale, I think

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

I also agree with what has been said, and am also opposed to the proposal. Some of the justification seems to be in the form of "I cannot afford to buy a car, so I demand that someone permit me to lease one". Noone is going to get into the car leasing business unless they can make money.

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

Exactly, and the main justification for this proposal to allow subleasing  is a total misuse of IP addressing and a try to privilege specific companies in detriment to all others. I do not agree that legitimizing leasing as such increases accessibility to IPv4 space. Organization already have

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

I have trouble with both phrases. Even if the resources are to be re-assigned to organizations or entities which do not receive connectivity from the original registrant, I see no reason to issue addresses to anyone who will not be using them on an operational network. Owen > On Oct 31,

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

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 3:03 PM Kiran Malancharuvil wrote: > Dear All, > > Prior to tomorrow's community discussion of Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18, I > wanted to offer some clarification and propose some language for > consideration to address questions posed on the PPML. > > Regarding the

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

Dear All, Prior to tomorrow's community discussion of Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18, I wanted to offer some clarification and propose some language for consideration to address questions posed on the PPML. Regarding the question over the intended meaning of "non-connected networks", I will clarify

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

On 10 Oct 2019, at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: On Sep 30, 2019, at 11:02 , Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com>> wrote: Hi Fernando, You said “RIR is and has always been the one who drives the resources to be efficientlly assigned by analysing justifications not

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

> On Oct 1, 2019, at 15:13 , David Farmer wrote: > > Because of an off-list conversation I'd like to add I think the expectations > of RFC2008 still exist in our policy manual today; > > 4.2.1.1. Purpose > > ARIN allocates blocks of IP addresses to ISPs for the purpose of reassigning >

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

> Second is the point that one of the business cases for leasing is for > spamming. This is something to consider, but I would like for you to put > yourself into the position of a Lessor. The Lessor knows his blocks will > lose value if they are blacklisted, so they take steps to mitigate

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

> On Sep 30, 2019, at 11:02 , Mike Burns wrote: > > Hi Fernando, > > You said “RIR is and has always been the one who drives the resources to be > efficientlly assigned by analysing justifications not private transfer > companies. If an organization is not using resouces efficiently it

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

Neither in favor nor opposed to the intent of the proposal at this time. I can see both sides… Allowing this would potentially increase whois accuracy since currently leases are happening without recording or registration. Allowing this would encourage/normalize this behavior which seems, more

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

Burns Cc: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks Mike - It would appear that reassignment is an excellent model for entities that want to lease portions of the their address space… (if you think about, this is effect

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

gs. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > -Original Message- > From: hostmas...@uneedus.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 8:59 PM > To: Mike Burns > Cc: 'ARIN-PPML List' > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to &g

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

ection status, in the context of justifications, would be > suitable accommodation to the community's needs as expressed by a growing > grey-market for leasing. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: hostmas...@uneedus.c

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

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 2:00 PM wrote: > 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

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

rey-market for leasing. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: hostmas...@uneedus.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 1:31 PM To: Mike Burns Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks I think if you want to advance this, I do

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

So working on this a bit more, I suggest the following policy text; Add to the end of section 2.4; LIRs may also assign address space to other organizations or customers that request it for use in operational networks. Change section 8.5.2 as follows; ARIN allocates or assigns number resources

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

Because of an off-list conversation I'd like to add I think the expectations of RFC2008 still exist in our policy manual today; 4.2.1.1. Purpose ARIN allocates blocks of IP addresses to ISPs for the purpose of reassigning and reallocating that space to *their customers.* 4.2.3.3. Contiguous

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

+1 to everything David just said. Do y'all have what you need to draft another version of this proposal tightening up the language to be consistent with this? Or does someone here need to propose text? -Scott On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:32 PM David Farmer wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:50

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

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:50 AM Scott Leibrand wrote: > Should we make 2019-18 clearly say that reallocation or reassignment to > non-connected networks who will themselves make operational use of the > leased addresses is considered efficient use? Basically, keep the “use” > requirement around

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

, 2019 3:09 PM To: Fernando Frediani ; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks Due to our not knowing that ARIN recently changed its policy on allocating additional address space, we are unable to get a subnet to handle

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

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:47 PM Fernando Frediani wrote: > **unused space** - that's the term to look at. > While there are plenty of organizations in the waiting list patiently > waiting to get addresses they are able to justify there are others with > unused space just willing to speculate them

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

Due to our not knowing that ARIN recently changed its policy on allocating additional address space, we are unable to get a subnet to handle our growth (missed the cut off by 10 days). We recently acquired a company that gets its space from another provider, but we need additional space to

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

19 1:31 PM To: Mike Burns Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks I think if you want to advance this, I do not think that you can really use the term "non connected network" because it has other meanings to those of us that actu

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

gulating for price now? > > Your numbers seem accurate to me. > > > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Martin Hannigan > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 01, 2019 1:53 PM > *To:* Mike Burns > *Cc:* Jim ; John Santos ; ARIN-PPML List >

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

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:34 AM Mike Burns wrote: > Off the top of my head… > > There are many temporary needs that can be best met by leasing. Company > transitions, renumbering, time-limited projects. > > Sometimes a company wants to test market an area. > > Geolocation needs, some companies

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

Hi Martin, Are we regulating for price now? Your numbers seem accurate to me. Regards, Mike From: Martin Hannigan Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 1:53 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: Jim ; John Santos ; ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re

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

or > whatever reason, but this policy change is required to allow such a business > to thrive. > > Regards, > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: hostmas...@uneedus.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 12:04 PM > To: Mike Burns > Cc: arin-ppml@a

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

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

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

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:37 PM Mike Burns wrote: > Jim 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

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

Jim 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

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

See inline. — Brian Jones NIS Virginia Tech On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:41 PM Jim wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:00 PM John Santos wrote: > > I am opposed to proposal that ARIN should in general be facilitating > entities > being able to obtain from ARIN permanent allocations made to >

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

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:00 PM John Santos 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

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

ards, Mike -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 11:50 AM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks Why do you hold so much in this RIPE example e

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

PML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 4:36 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks On 30/09/2019 15:36, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Currently, the ability to obtain IPv4 resourc

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

ani Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 4:36 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks On 30/09/2019 15:36, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Currently, the ability to obtain IPv4 resources is constrained by the require

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

oo, and having the ability to define > a hijack as being non-compliant with a lease policy will enable ARIN to > pressure the address holder for a policy violation if pressure from that side > helps. >> >> Regards, >> Mike >> >> >> >> ---

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

Should we make 2019-18 clearly say that reallocation or reassignment to non-connected networks who will themselves make operational use of the leased addresses is considered efficient use? Basically, keep the “use” requirement around reassignments the same as it is now, and just state clearly

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

Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 4:36 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks On 30/09/2019 15:36, hostmas...@

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

rrections. On > the other hand, spammers like to hijack too, and having the ability to define > a hijack as being non-compliant with a lease policy will enable ARIN to > pressure the address holder for a policy violation if pressure from that side > helps. >> >> Regards,

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

being non-compliant with a lease policy will enable ARIN to pressure the address holder for a policy violation if pressure from that side helps. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > -Original Message- > From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando > Frediani > Sent: Monday, Se

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

Hi I am not sure we are talking exactly the same thing as the PDP are more guidelines of procedures that must be followed when developing a new policy. With regards NRPM Section 1 it is pretty short and doesn't contain everything that matters to all topics discussed here so the intent to

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

On 30 Sep 2019, at 7:49 PM, Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello John Thank for your comment. You are right that 2050 has been obsoleted by 7020, however 7020 is much shorter and doesn't contain much of the points and basis of 2050. That doesn't necessarily mean that

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

Hello John Thank for your comment. You are right that 2050 has been obsoleted by 7020, however 7020 is much shorter and doesn't contain much of the points and basis of 2050. That doesn't necessarily mean that 7020 invalidated everything that was not repeated 'ipsis literis' as it was in 2050.

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

Sticking to the actual draft policy which is being proposed, in a world of IPv4 shortages I think that any available numbers available for directed transfer continue the current policy of "operational use" in order to receive IPv4 directed transfer addresses. The proposal would allow the

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

Hi Fernando, You asked me some questions so I will reply to them inline, and because we have drifted, this will be my last post on this directly. I mentioned 2050 to highlight the unchanging stewardship requirements, conservation and registration, as an effort to demonstrate that your

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

> This is more a point of view one how the things happen in practice or > should happen and I personally don't agree with that in full. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > -Original Message- > From: ARIN-PPML On > Behalf Of Fernando Frediani > Sent: Mo

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

On 30 Sep 2019, at 4:23 PM, Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote: ... It also says: "ISPs are required to utilize address space in an efficient manner. To this end, ISPs should have documented justification available for each assignment. The regional registry may, at any time,

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

pressure from that side helps. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 4:36 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks On 30/09/2019

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

rediani Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 4:36 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks On 30/09/2019 15:36, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Currently, the ability to obtain IPv4 resources is constrained by the

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

@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks On 30/09/2019 15:36, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > Currently, the ability to obtain IPv4 resources is constrained by the > requirement to prove to ARIN that you need the add

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

why trade the lack of insight into IPv4 block contact information for the maintenance of this fig-leaf? Regards, Mike Burns From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 7:20 PM To: arin-ppml Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-20

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

e: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks I strongly oppose this proposal. Leasing of IP addresses in such way should never be permmited and is a distortion of the way IP addresses must be used by organizations. The main reason is simple: if an orga

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

30, 2019 2:37 PM > To: Mike Burns > Cc: 'Fernando Frediani' ; 'arin-ppml' > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP > Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks > > Like Fernando I am also strongly opposed to the leasing of IPv4 addresses and > opp

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

From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 7:20 PM To: arin-ppml Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks I strongly oppose this proposal. Leasing of IP addresses in such way should

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

e question? Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: hostmas...@uneedus.com Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 2:37 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: 'Fernando Frediani' ; 'arin-ppml' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks Like Fernando

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

half Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 7:20 PM To: arin-ppml Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks   I strongly oppose this proposal.   Leasing of IP addresses in such way should never be permmited and is a

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

Frediani Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 7:20 PM To: arin-ppml Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks I strongly oppose this proposal. Leasing of IP addresses in such way should never be permmited and is a distortion of the way

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

I strongly oppose this proposal. Leasing of IP addresses in such way should never be permmited and is a distortion of the way IP addresses must be used by organizations. The main reason is simple: if an organization is "leasing" IP address it is a clear sign that the organization does not have

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

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 network. It has long since been established that global unique addresses are a Good Thing (TM) for such networks. The proposal implies "Non-Connected"

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

: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 4:37 PM Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:41 PM ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net> > wrote: Businesses have

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

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:41 PM ARIN wrote: > Businesses have a need to lease IPv4 space for limited periods of time, > as evidenced by a robust (technically prohibited) subleasing market. The > lack of legitimization of the subleasing market hinders innovation, > research, reporting, and the

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

. In the meantime I approve Scott’s edit. Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 4:58 PM To: ARIN Cc: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks I support

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

On 9/24/2019 04:41 PM, ARIN wrote: ORIGINAL POLICY LANGUAGE 8.5.2 Operational Use ARIN allocates or assigns number resources to organizations via transfer solely for the purpose of use on an operational network. PROPOSED POLICY LANGUAGE Option 1 : Remove 8.5.2 entirely Option 2 : Edit as

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

I support the spirit of this policy. I'm not sure the Option 2 edits to 8.5.2 Operational Use would have the intended effect. It reads that "ARIN ... may allocate or assign number resources to organizations for other purposes, including re-assignment to non-connected networks", which doesn't

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

On 19 September 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-277: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks" as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_18/ You are encouraged to discuss all

  1   2   >