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 whos

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 no

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 abou

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 ther

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] 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

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 matte

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

the lease. 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 messa

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 r

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 >distort

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 ac

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

:22 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 Fernando Frediani wrote: >I do not agree that legitimizing leasing as such increases >accessibility to >IPv4 space. I personally

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 fo

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 subs

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 providing

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 p

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 thi

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. Gene

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, 2019,

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 question

[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 th