+1
Agreed. The middleman with no infrastructure business model is by
it's very nature parasitic.
Scott
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Surely people benefiting from IP leasing will keep trying to make it
'normal', acceptable and part of day by day as if these middleman were
facilitating something for the good of the internet while it is the
opposite.
This practice serves exclusively to the financial benefit of those who lease
(but are not building any Internet Infrastructure) and of course to the
middleman not the lessee.
How can it be beneficial to lessee that has to pay more they would have to
spend if those very same resources were recovered by the RIR and
re-distributed directly to that same organization ?
It doesn't matter much how the scenario changed in the past and recent
years. There are principles and fairness to be observed and they should not
change in order to adjust the interest of these few ones who speculate a
resource that doesn't belong to them and wasn't justified for that propose.
It is just easier the RIR to recover them and do the right thing, for harder
and stressful it can be it is the right thing to be done.
I don't mean to sound rude to those who disagree with me, but I really hope
RIRs in general revoke as much as possible addresses clearly being used for
leasing where the resource holder only speculates them, doesn't build any
Internet infrastructure and where in many cases don't even exist
connectivity between the current resource holder and the lessee and
re-allocate them to those who truly justify. This has nothing to do with
interfere in the business of that resource holder.
Often those supporting this misuse of IP resources try to paint a picture
that those resources are organization's property and the RIR should be
unable to do anything about that. Not being a irrevocable properly
organizations own explanations and clarity about how they use it according
to the what is in the best interest of all those who developed and agreed
the current rules in place and the organization who has the duty to inspect
that. Regardless the commercial model of an organization it must adhere to
the current rules and contract they previously signed, not the other way
round.
Also the understanding that a LIR leases IP addresses is quiet wrong. If
they are build Internet infrastructure, provide connectivity and charge
administrative fees for the addresses they allocate to that customer there
is nothing wrong with it.
I personally can understand the permanent Transfer of resources and that has
been a more natural and fair movement and why community agreed on that on
most RIRs, but despite some beautiful picture painted IP leasing brings no
good to lessee and to the Internet if things can be done in the proper way.
Regards
Fernando
On 02/09/2021 17:39, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <[email protected]>,
"Mike Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
We tried the method you've espoused below for thirty years and
the result were a huge amount of wasted address space. Once the market
was adopted, many of those addresses found a useful place in the routing
table.
Well, it's sort of a Catch-22. Mike, you're absolutely right that once
there was a free market, a lot of stuff came off the shelves and started
to be used productively. But can any of us say with confidence that once
there was a free market, a lot of this commodity (IPv4) that was sitting
on shelves didn't just stay there -because- of the open and free market...
because the "owners" of those blocks effectively became speculators, just
waiting arond for the scarcity to become more acute, and for the price to
go up?
(I confess that I never in my life took an economics class, but it seems
to me that the entire field is chock full of head-scratching conundrums
like this... situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you
don't.)
The free pool era is dying, let's put a fork in it as quickly as
possible We've seen the corruption engendered by the bait of the
free pool in multiple registries now, including our own.
Just curious Mike... Does this opinion on your part extend also to IPv6?
Your old-fashioned method of address distribution would get some
addresses to those in need, I will concede that. However, so will
leasing addresses, with that demonstration of need being the lease
payment. Will you concede that those who pay to lease addresses need
them?
Even if nobody else does, I certainly will. But of course that's not the
only issue.
The current Cloud Innovation v. AFRINIC thing is in some ways confusing as
hell because it has brought to a head -multiple- long-standing issues that
have then gotten all tangled up with one another, making it difficult for
anybody to tease apart the various separate issues.
One of these is what might be called "equity", i.e. the social desire to
help Africa, a continent and a people who have been on the receiving end
of so much exploitation and malevolent evil, over the centuries, at the
hands of others.
Another issue is the right and proper role of RIRs.
Last but not leas (and perhaps the most troubling and most difficult to
crack open in a way that does not merely reveal our individual biases) is
the question of the proper role of what I will just call "speculators"
within any free market.
Contrary to what some might say, I think that when it comes to IPv4 addresse
s
at least, it most certainly -is- possible to distinguish "speculators" from
actual and legitimate end users and/or legitimate brokers & middlemen such
as yourself. As I understand it, the current system requires people to
document their equipment purchases. No equipment purchases? You're almost
certainly just a speculator.
So then the question becomes two-fold: (1) Do we want speculators in this
marketplace? and (2) Is there any actually feasible way to keep them out
of the "free" market even if the collective "we" firmly decided that we
wanted to do so?
I personally don't have answers to any of these questions. I would only
offer up the observation that I am aware of at least a few speculators at
this moment in time, and it would be an understatement for me to say that
their actions seem to me to be both glaringly untoward and also unhelpful.
But if you ask me IN GENERAL whether "speculators" are a necessary and even
useful component of a free market, I cannot say they are not. And it seems
I may not be alone in leaving open this possibility:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/09/the-theranos-implosion-a
nd-robert-shiller-on-short-selling-and-complete-markets/
Regards,
rfg
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
