On 9 Sep 2021, at 2:44 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sep 8, 2021, at 18:33 , John Curran <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ... Under such a theory, the first LIR at ARIN could claim that they have technical need for more blocks to support their forthcoming leasing to all cloud providers in North America (a lot of need indeed)… The fact that you have business relationship with a party does not make _their_ technical requirements somehow into _your_ technical requirements. On the other hand. when an ISP connects a customer to the Internet, they often do need to supply some address space to the customer for use in the customer’s network - it might be a single IP address for a customer CPE, or it could be an large block because the customer wants all of the devices on their internal network to now have Internet access – i.e. precisely why they purchased Internet service. The address space needed by the ISP is a valid technical need because ISP requires it for the connectivity service being provisioned, even if some of it is sub-assigned and utilized on customers network infrastructure. Actually, they don’t NEED to, they WANT to. They can simply refer their customer to the RIR to obtain the addresses directly. This is inconvenient and works against aggregation, but it is 100% technically possible. The ISP is providing network services to the customer network and their services can’t functional technically without the customer network being issued IP addresses… it is rather obvious. So either the customers NEED for addresses extends to the LIR and becomes the LIR’s need or it doesn’t.≈ An ISP does not suddenly gain a technical need for more IP address space for their operational network based on some other party who has no connectivity to their network. This is common practice, and nearly everyone in the ARIN ISP community is both aware of it and has submitted resource requests accordingly. Yes, lots of things that are not necessarily policy are common practice. I’m not claiming that this common practice doesn’t fit within policy, but I am claiming that policy does not actually prescribe a need for connectivity to be integral to this extension of need and it does not actually proscribe the provision by an LIR of an address management service exclusive of connectivity. You are incorrect. Again - "Conservation of these common number spaces requires that Internet number resources be efficiently distributed to those organizations who have a technical need for them in support of operational networks." One cannot have a _technical need_ for IP addresses based on other party’s network unless there’s some technical connection – you can have a business need, but that’s not the same thing. If there’s some connectivity service involved, then it’s fairly straightforward to see how a technical need of a customer network can also been a technical need for the ISP/LIR. You seem to be arguing that a plaintext reading of ARIN policy provides such a proscription, yet I cannot find it. Please review above - it’s rather clear. An LIR may not assert that they have a new _technical need_ for more IP address space as a result of signing a leasing contract. There is no need to indicate on the application whether the VPN in question will ever carry traffic or not. Leave that blank. ARIN might make assumptions, but those assumptions can’t actually be verified one way or the other anyway. Yes, I imagine that some will assert that there are connectivity services while knowing in fact that such representations are sham – it’s wrong to do, but the misrepresentation won’t stop some people if they feel they won’t get caught. If you really want to change ARIN’s existing number resource policy to meet your creative new world view, please put in a policy proposal to make the change and let the community discuss and decide whether solely utilization due to leasing of address space to others should be considered a valid need for receiving additional number resource issuance. No policy proposal is needed. Fig leaves are much easier and you’ve already stated that they cover the situation adequately. While I view the requirement for the fig leaf to be kind of silly, it makes some people happy and it costs next to nothing to implement, so why go to the trouble to pursue a policy modification that isn’t all that likely to succeed due to the various emotional reactions that it would engender? Some people would fine operating in such a manner as you describe (i.e. knowingly violating policy requiring connectivity by asserting sham connectivity services) to be perfectly fine, and others would not - it’s more of an ethical question than anything else. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________ 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.
