On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 1:32 PM John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > As such, your statement "A prohibition on leasing addresses is not > enforceable.” looks to be far more definitive than might be the case.
Hi John, I defy you to write such a proposal that isn't 10 minutes work and negligible expense for an address lessor to circumvent. I've tried and come up empty. Consider some of the permutations on the lease of "IP addresses and network infrastructure." 1. /24 address space and right to announce with BGP. No network. 2. /24 address space and right to announce with BGP. Dialup modem in Kansas will accept BGP announcement. Customer buys primary transit elsewhere. 3. /24 address space and right to announce with BGP. Linux virtual machine running FRRouting under Customer's control in ISP datacenter with some bandwidth. Customer buys primary transit elsewhere. 4. /24 address space and right to announce with BGP. Gigabit port on ISP switch VLANed to router with a BGP session dedicated to customer at ISP datacenter. Burstable bandwidth from zero mbps. Up to customer to buy telco lines to connect to it. Customer buys primary transit elsewhere. 5. /24 address space and right to announce with BGP. T1 link for customer. Customer buys other (primary) transit elsewhere. 6. /24 address space and right to announce with BGP. Primary gigabit link. Customer buys a secondary elsewhere. The first 4 of these are functionally the same for someone whose -intent- is to lease addresses without significantly investing in network infrastructure. And how does ARIN determine the 5th is actually a different situation than the 4th? Perhaps you take a different vector. The ISP can be non-primary transit for no more than 5% of its address space. Or 10%. Or 25%. Whatever percentage it takes to stop the modem/virtual/empty port model without also banning Amazon. Where would a policy draw the line between "this is an ISP" and "this is someone leasing addresses?" And who do you destroy as a result, since once you have the rule you can't make arbitrary and capricious exceptions when someone reasonable comes along and says, "surely you didn't mean me!" > ARIN does not actually operate as an automaton Yes, I know. And you know that when the line is drawn too fine you get into legal trouble, so ARIN errs on the side of granting requests for which there's a reasonable argument that they comply with policy. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ 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.
