On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:24 PM Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am in total agreement with your sentiment and the requirement for a > circuit should continue to stand. > > > > Any policy that removes such a requirement would render the management of > Internet Number Resources by the registry useless and thereby essentially > lead to no need for the registry after all. > > > > Noah > > > > Hi Noah, > > > > Are you aware that there has been no needs-test for RIPE transfers for > many years and the RIR system hasn’t collapsed? > Transfers are generally a prerogative of brokers who don't necessarily provide any form of network services. It does make sense for a broker to defend this model. > > To make it clear, in RIPE you can purchase address space with the sole > purpose of leasing it out. > What happens in RIPE does not have to trickle down to ARIN or any other region for that matter. > Owen has already pointed out the futility of the circuit requirement in > practice, yet you think that’s what keeps the RIR system functional? > > > > Opposing this policy means the only lessors are the lucky incumbents. > How so, last I checked, as an LIR, we continue to sub-allocate/assign every end-user we bring online through every circuit. For end-users who need more than we can sub-allocate, we refer them to the RIR for such needs. The RIR system has in place policies that have worked for decades so well to the best interest of the community and the internet as we know it. > Opposing this policy means a lack of policy is preferred, despite the open > practice of leasing. > There is already a policy. What do you mean lack of policy yet there is already a policy which has worked well until you folks want to now remove the need for a circuit so that those of you who benefit from the no circuit based service of IPv$ can expand the scope of your business model beyond just RIPE and provide IPv4 a much longer lifeline. > Opposing this policy provides incentive for registry-shopping and address > outflow. > What registry shopping. The widely known practise has always been RIR <> LIR <> END-USER. This has worked and continues too. > Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool and drives up lease rates. > If your business model is to profit from leasing and not the IP related services which include connectivity, then yes. LIR who focus on providing services and using integers as a means to do so, dont worry much about lease rates since 99% LIR businesses are not those of IPv4 brokerage or leasing with no service. Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes accurate registration. > 99% of LIR business models are such that LIR's provide IP related services that require a numbered circuit. Majority of LIR around the world follow this school of thought. Only a handful of profit minded IPv4 brokers and those who subscribe to the IPv4 leasing business model; are into this flawed draft policy whose aim is to profit off limited IPv4 addresses without necessarily providing Internet based services. Worse of it is that, we have experienced purported LIR running an IPv$ enterprise without offering any circuit based service. The entity's annual membership contribution to the RIR is hardly $15K yet holds millions of IPv4 addresses it hoards so that it can go about leasing them for significant figures of $30 per IPv4 address. Noah
_______________________________________________ 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.
