There is no definition for lease or leased IPs anywhere in the NRPM. This is
getting into the same jargonized problem as before. IF ARIN was to define
leasing IPs, then there is an expectation legally that leasing IPs is an
"acceptable use" of number resources unless more policy explicitly denies
leasing. However, the policy manual as it is now is intentionally vague enough
to not argue for or deny leasing IP addresses as an acceptable utilization of
resources. Additionally, as an SP, what does a lease look like?
I understand this is opening up the proverbial can of worms, but I don't
believe these statements can be mutually exclusive.
Dustin Moses
Network Engineer II
o: 208-762-8065 d: (208) 758-0489
w: intermaxnetworks.com
a: 7400 N Mineral Drive Suite 300, Coeur d'Alene, ID
83815
-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 6:16 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 216, Issue 35
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re:
Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the waitlist
agreement to include a restriction on leasing (Owen DeLong)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the waitlist
agreement to include a restriction on leasing (Ron Grant)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the waitlist
agreement to include a restriction on leasing (William Herrin)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for
IXPs (Matt Peterson)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for
IXPs (Bill Woodcock)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for
IXPs (David Farmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 21:44:58 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
To: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the
waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing
Message-ID: <79bf00cf-e7bc-471f-a234-f77e1beec...@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
What if the registrant issues the addresses to downstream BGP customers?
Owen
> On Jun 20, 2023, at 15:16, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54?AM ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote:
>> Address space distributed from the waitlist will not be eligible for lease
>> or transfer, with the exception of Section 8.2 transfers, for a period of 60
>> months.
>
> Fuzzy language. What is leasing? Suggest something more like:
>
> "If announced on the public Internet, address space distributed from
> the waitlist shall be announced only by the direct ARIN registrant
> until 60 months after receipt."
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 22:26:12 -0700
From: Ron Grant <ron+arin-p...@balansoft.com>
To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the
waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing
Message-ID: <eb2d9e3b-9e31-4c3f-c90e-a7c0a206e...@balansoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
That's not a lease, in the sense that's of concern. "Downstream" implies a
connection. Let's call that "rent".
ISPs "rent" IP blocks all the time - even for their own customers.
$10/mo for a static IP address instead of a DHCP assigned one - a practice as
old as the hills.
And business-based Internet is almost always a statically assigned CIDR subnet
- for example one client of mine assigns a /29 for free, and charges an
additional $1/ip for larger networks. That's rent. (ya I know, IANAL and the
acronym speaks volumes)
Seems to me the thing that's got everyone tied in a knot is the idea of
allowing someone to lease out a wait-listed network to someone with whom YOU
HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP.
How to define that? Maybe "arm's length".....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arm%27s_length#:~:text=?Arm%27s%20length?%20is%20an%20expression,and%20in%20their%20self%2Dinterest.
On 2023-06-20 9:44 p.m., Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> What if the registrant issues the addresses to downstream BGP customers?
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Jun 20, 2023, at 15:16, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54?AM ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote:
>>> Address space distributed from the waitlist will not be eligible for lease
>>> or transfer, with the exception of Section 8.2 transfers, for a period of
>>> 60 months.
>> Fuzzy language. What is leasing? Suggest something more like:
>>
>> "If announced on the public Internet, address space distributed from
>> the waitlist shall be announced only by the direct ARIN registrant
>> until 60 months after receipt."
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>> --
>> William Herrin
>> b...@herrin.us
>> https://bill.herrin.us/
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
--
Ron Grant
Balan Software/Networks
Network Architecture & Programming
604-737-2113
ca.linkedin.com/in/obiron
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 23:16:46 -0700
From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the
waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing
Message-ID:
<cap-gugw-cyx0hjeuggu0dpuph9f1qkrgo+cxhzllnpyakjs...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 9:45?PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> What if the registrant issues the addresses to downstream BGP customers?
They sat through the waitlist for years, not buying addresses at market since
that would have kicked them off the waitlist, and then when they finally got
their, what, /22 or so, they decided to use them for a downstream BGP customer?
Pull the other one.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 01:18:55 -0700
From: Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org>
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4
allocation for IXPs
Message-ID:
<CAFN0R27ach9zuLrPufDsx-kbXGfd=eytpzuovriiegg3mmp...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It's clear this proposal did not receive feedback from those of us
who operate IXP's *(or those who lived through the ep.net <http://ep.net>
era).* Renumbering events are often multi-year efforts for an IXP, this
"savings" is not worth the operational overhead. I'm not in support of this
proposal. This is a solution looking for a problem, we have both the
appropriate pool size and a method to refill.
If anything, the 4.4 requirement language around *"other participants
(minimum of three total)" *could use some attention. ARIN's service region
has many "shadow IXP's", which may have 3 unique ASN's *(say a route
server, route collector, and management network) *- but are all operated by
the same organization. That does not seem like a legitimate definition of
an exchange point, especially when that operator is the only participant
over several years.
--Matt
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54?AM ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote:
> On 15 June 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ?ARIN-prop-320:
> /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs? as a Draft Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2 is below and can be found at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_2
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20230621/f272018f/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 12:54:03 +0200
From: Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net>
To: Douglas Haber via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4
allocation for IXPs
Message-ID: <d4c6f56a-3b02-468b-b317-0383fbd93...@pch.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> On Jun 21, 2023, at 10:18 AM, Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org> wrote:
> It's clear this proposal did not receive feedback from those of us who
> operate IXP's (or those who lived through the ep.net era). Renumbering events
> are often multi-year efforts for an IXP, this "savings" is not worth the
> operational overhead. I'm not in support of this proposal. This is a solution
> looking for a problem, we have both the appropriate pool size and a method to
> refill.
> If anything, the 4.4 requirement language around "other participants (minimum
> of three total)" could use some attention. ARIN's service region has many
> "shadow IXP's", which may have 3 unique ASN's (say a route server, route
> collector, and management network) - but are all operated by the same
> organization. That does not seem like a legitimate definition of an exchange
> point, especially when that operator is the only participant over several
> years.
I would just chime in to say that I definitely agree with the first of Matt?s
points. IXPs rarely know how long it will be until they need a larger address
space, and when they do, it?s typically too late to renumber hundreds of
different organizations. This policy would create a vast amount of unnecessary
work for ARIN members, while yielding no obvious benefit to anyone.
As regards what constitutes a ?real? IXP, that?s a tougher question. While
Matt is undoubtedly correct that Andrew?s Basement Exchange, the canonical
example, may not have three unrelated participants at the time they apply,
that?s also true, at the outset, of many IXPs which follow a sure-footed path
to success. And it?s not possible to know in advance, in any sort of
replicable policy way, which will ultimately succeed, and which fail. I guess
my thought on this is to be liberal in distributing, and also relatively quick
to reclaim when an IXP goes defunct. Over the last 31 years, 34% of all IXPs
that were established, went defunct. Many took years or decades to fail, but
once they have, there?s no reason for those allocations to persist. Most IXPs
are one-off, a group of ISPs who get together to form an IXP in a specific
location. A few consist of a single organization spanning multiple unconnected
locations? When those organizations are for-profit startups, I guess I woul
d evaluate their claims carefully, and do a slow-start, rather than allowing
them to use the policy to get a /24 for every new claimed location, in advance
of proving themselves.
-Bill
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 08:15:47 -0500
From: David Farmer <far...@umn.edu>
To: Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4
allocation for IXPs
Message-ID:
<CAN-Dau1HsnbqA=j3jNQkmSHaSTsLNu0Sj1JiSFnbWj8mO=h...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Actually, I expect the genesis of this proposal was the very similar
proposal in the RIPE community RIPE-2023-02 Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment
default size to a /26. That proposal followed a presentation at RIPE 86
last fall and a discussion on their address-policy-wg mailing late last
year. The conversation started with a reduction to /29, and a reasonable
compromise of /26 that was written in to a formal proposal earlier this
year. That proposal is progressing through their process and just finished
their Discussion Phase last week, and has entered their Review Phase, and
at least seems to be heading towards being policy in the RIPE community.
While I do not support this proposal, especially as written, it is
nevertheless an important and timely conversation for the ARIN community to
have and I for one appreciate it being brought forward to our community as
a proposal.
Thanks.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 03:19 Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org> wrote:
> It's clear this proposal did not receive feedback from those of us
> who operate IXP's *(or those who lived through the ep.net <http://ep.net>
> era).* Renumbering events are often multi-year efforts for an IXP, this
> "savings" is not worth the operational overhead. I'm not in support of this
> proposal. This is a solution looking for a problem, we have both the
> appropriate pool size and a method to refill.
>
> If anything, the 4.4 requirement language around *"other participants
> (minimum of three total)" *could use some attention. ARIN's service
> region has many "shadow IXP's", which may have 3 unique ASN's *(say a
> route server, route collector, and management network) *- but are all
> operated by the same organization. That does not seem like a legitimate
> definition of an exchange point, especially when that operator is the only
> participant over several years.
>
> --Matt
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54?AM ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote:
>
>> On 15 June 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ?ARIN-prop-320:
>> /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs? as a Draft Policy.
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2 is below and can be found at:
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_2
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20230621/da859b3f/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML@arin.net
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
------------------------------
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 216, Issue 35
******************************************
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
