30 Sep
2013
2:34 p.m.
Hey Elvis,
I've just watched the video of the proceedings in Xi'an, and noticed you stood up and made comments about the the issue.
Since you were there, you heard clearly that leasing is not covered by APNIC policy.... so I am not sure of your statement "as far as I know, leasing APNIC issued address space is not currently allowed by the policy. Why would your customers want to violate the policy and clearly show that in whois?" since it is clearly incorrect.
PS Adam, I know of at least a dozen of instances of IP Address leasing in our region. It is just done off-book, and involves only the lessor and lessee.
Btw... I am not saying this is good or bad... I am simply stating a situation.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:
Elvis,What policy do you think this falls under?I think you will find that you are very much incorrect.Given many (most) ISPs charge for IP addresses for their customers, especially beyond the normal standard single allocation, I think you would find that this would fall under leasing.The difference from charging a client $10 per for a /29, or $500 per month for a /24 is absolutely no different to leasing someone a /24, /23..... /16 to them which they announce from their own transit or ASN (or you could lease them an ASN as well).If you can find a policy which suggest this is against policy, I would very much like to know:1) how it is different to the charging that most providers do today2) how APNIC in any way could possibly enforce such a nonsense attempt at a policy (if it exists)I've just found Adam Goslings email of August 5th 2013 to Sig Policy which includes:---Dear Colleagues,
The APNIC Secretariat notes an emerging trend toward interest in IPv4
address leasing / rental with at least one address broker offering such
a service.
This type of sub-leasing arrangement is not covered by current IPv4
addressing policy, registry services, or Member Service systems
including MyAPNIC.
....---This basically states that leasing and sub-leasing are not under APNIC policy.
...SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltdskeeve@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net
The Experts Who The Experts CallJuniper - Cisco - CloudOn Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Elvis Velea <elvis@velea.eu> wrote:Hi Skeeve,
as far as I know, leasing APNIC issued address space is not currently allowed by the policy. Why would your customers want to violate the policy and clearly show that in whois?
PS: I'm thinking to come up with a policy proposal to permit lease of address space within APNIC. However, this policy proposal can only be discussed and (maybe) approved at the next APNIC meeting, in February.
cheers,
elvis
On 9/30/13 12:28 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey Byron,_______________________________________________
Thanks for the response (only 3 weeks ;-)
I have some people who are looking at leasing address space (in both
directions).
They are wondering that while they lease it, could they run their own
WHOIS server, and relay queries from the lessor of the space to the lessee.
Make sense?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com <mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com> ;
www.eintellegonetworks.com <http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> ; blog:
www.network-ceo.net <http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Byron Ellacott <bje@apnic.net
<mailto:bje@apnic.net>> wrote:
Hi Skeeve,
Unfortunately this is not technically possible. The WHOIS protocol
doesn't have a referral or redirection mechanism; you can of course
list your own server in remarks attributes, but there's no standard
approach that lets clients follow this advice to reach another server.
If you can share the motivation or drivers for the request, perhaps
we can find another way to help solve the problem?
Byron
--
Byron Ellacott email: bje@apnic.net
<mailto:bje@apnic.net>
Technical Director, APNIC sip: bje@voip.apnic.net
<mailto:bje@voip.apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
________________________________________________________________________
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
From: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 3 September 2013 7:54 AM
To: "apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>"
<apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>>
Subject: [apnic-talk] Chaining Whois Requests
Hey all,
Is there anyway, with APNIC, to setup requests to come to your
own whois server - for your ranges?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com> ;
www.eintellegonetworks.com <http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> ;
blog: www.network-ceo.net <http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
Replies
30 Sep
4:14 p.m.
Hi Elvis,
Sorry about the number of emails. I had not had the time to review the APNIC AMM meeting video as I was unable to make it to the last meeting.
Firstly, I think you are incorrect in assuming that anything not expressly permitted by the policies is forbidden. I could suggest that anything not expressly forbidden by the policies is allowed... which, imho makes more sense..... but is certainly an arguable item ;-)
I agree with you, Dean, Tom and others... that knowing who is assigned an end-ip is very important... but, I'd like to point out a couple of things.
- At the moment we rarely know who is actually using a particular address.. especially on dynamic assignments, and mostly just identifies the LIR. Even if an end-user is identified, that is mostly a company and almost rarely a 'useful' end user of any sorts.
- I am a big supporter of policy to clarify ambiguity, so that people know what they are and are not entitled to do.
- That said, I am ONLY a supporter of policy that can actually be enforced in some way.
- Given this position. In the situation of address space leasing, should the lessor and lessee wish to keep the matter confidential, there is almost no way for the RIR or others to even know about the situation.
I saw some at Xi'an attempt to clarify where the practice of current end-customer usage of address space was defined, but most of those arguments weren't really of any definable manner that takes into account the flexible nature of peoples business models. Someone said that they should be a 'customer' before 'leasing' them address space. I'd argue that them leasing that space, makes them a customer... and how dare anyone attempt to define who or what I call a customer. To take Randy's (Bush) perspective... don't tell me how to run my network - or my business..
Like prop-050 and my the arguments I raised in March 2009 (4.5 years ago) I brought up this possibility (of address leasing) and the issues involved in policing it. The issue back then was the same (from my perspective)... is that unenforceable policy should be avoided at all costs, as it is just another document that will waste everyones time.
As Aftab pointed out... there are many companies in his region doing this already. I know of some leasing agreements in country (Australia) where the leasing agreements have been working fine for the parties involved - just not necessarily the community.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Elvis Velea <elvis@velea.eu> wrote:
Hi Skeeve,
I saw 3 e-mails from you today. I am sorry if my message has offended you or any of your customers. It was not my intention, please accept my sincere apology.
I've re-read my previous message and it does sound a bit harsh.
My understanding (and please give me some slack here as I am new to the policies in the APNIC region) is that if something (in this case leasing) does not fall under the policies, then the act of doing that something is violating the policies.
Currently, IP addresses can be assigned or sub-allocated (delegated) by APNIC members to customers, that is correct. These can all be seen as leasing by someone, however.. these assignments or sub-allocations can only be made up to the member's AW, otherwise, they would have to request APNIC's approval. Therefore, I would say that these operations are called assignment and delegation; I would not like anyone to confuse them with leasing.
What I do want to propose is to update the transfer policy and allow 'temporary transfers' (leases) to be made.
The fact that leases are done off-book worries me, and should worry everyone in this community. The registration of these leases should be done showing who is actually using the resources.
What I was thinking to propose is to have something similar to the RIPE policy, where (parts of) an allocation can be transferred for either a permanent or a temporary period.
The temporary transfer would follow the current process, except that when the temporary period has ended, APNIC would update registration to match the original holder of the allocation.
I first need to read the process and see exactly how to make a policy proposal and then you will hear from me :-)
cheers,
elvis
On 9/30/13 4:34 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey Elvis,
I've just watched the video of the proceedings in Xi'an, and noticed you
stood up and made comments about the the issue.
Since you were there, you heard clearly that leasing is not covered by
APNIC policy.... so I am not sure of your statement "as far as I know,
leasing APNIC issued address space is not currently allowed by the
policy. Why would your customers want to violate the policy and clearly
show that in whois?" since it is clearly incorrect.
PS Adam, I know of at least a dozen of instances of IP Address leasing
in our region. It is just done off-book, and involves only the lessor
and lessee.
Btw... I am not saying this is good or bad... I am simply stating a
situation.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com <mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com> ;
www.eintellegonetworks.com <http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> ; blog:
www.network-ceo.net <http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Skeeve Stevens
<skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com <mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>>
wrote:
Elvis,
What policy do you think this falls under?
I think you will find that you are very much incorrect.
Given many (most) ISPs charge for IP addresses for their customers,
especially beyond the normal standard single allocation, I think you
would find that this would fall under leasing.
The difference from charging a client $10 per for a /29, or $500 per
month for a /24 is absolutely no different to leasing someone a /24,
/23..... /16 to them which they announce from their own transit or
ASN (or you could lease them an ASN as well).
If you can find a policy which suggest this is against policy, I
would very much like to know:
1) how it is different to the charging that most providers do today
2) how APNIC in any way could possibly enforce such a nonsense
attempt at a policy (if it exists)
I've just found Adam Goslings email of August 5th 2013 to Sig Policy
which includes:
---
Dear Colleagues,
The APNIC Secretariat notes an emerging trend toward interest in IPv4
address leasing / rental with at least one address broker offering such
a service.
This type of sub-leasing arrangement is not covered by current IPv4
addressing policy, registry services, or Member Service systems
including MyAPNIC.
....
---
This basically states that leasing and sub-leasing are not under
APNIC policy.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com> ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> ; blog:
www.network-ceo.net <http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Elvis Velea <elvis@velea.eu
<mailto:elvis@velea.eu>> wrote:
Hi Skeeve,
as far as I know, leasing APNIC issued address space is not
currently allowed by the policy. Why would your customers want
to violate the policy and clearly show that in whois?
PS: I'm thinking to come up with a policy proposal to permit
lease of address space within APNIC. However, this policy
proposal can only be discussed and (maybe) approved at the next
APNIC meeting, in February.
cheers,
elvis
On 9/30/13 12:28 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey Byron,
Thanks for the response (only 3 weeks ;-)
I have some people who are looking at leasing address space
(in both
directions).
They are wondering that while they lease it, could they run
their own
WHOIS server, and relay queries from the lessor of the space
to the lessee.
Make sense?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>
<mailto:skeeve@__eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>> ;
www.eintellegonetworks.com
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com>
<http://www.__eintellegonetworks.com/
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/__eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks>
<http://facebook.com/__eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks>> ;
<http://twitter.com/__networkceoau
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>>linkedin.com/in/__skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve__>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
<http://twitter.com/__networkceoau
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>> ; blog:
www.network-ceo.net <http://www.network-ceo.net>
<http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Byron Ellacott
<bje@apnic.net <mailto:bje@apnic.net>
<mailto:bje@apnic.net <mailto:bje@apnic.net>>> wrote:
Hi Skeeve,
Unfortunately this is not technically possible. The
WHOIS protocol
doesn't have a referral or redirection mechanism; you
can of course
list your own server in remarks attributes, but there's
no standard
approach that lets clients follow this advice to reach
another server.
If you can share the motivation or drivers for the
request, perhaps
we can find another way to help solve the problem?
Byron
--
Byron Ellacott email:
bje@apnic.net <mailto:bje@apnic.net>
<mailto:bje@apnic.net <mailto:bje@apnic.net>>
Technical Director, APNIC sip:
bje@voip.apnic.net <mailto:bje@voip.apnic.net>
<mailto:bje@voip.apnic.net <mailto:bje@voip.apnic.net>>
http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7
3858 3100
____________________________________________________________________________
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
From: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>
<mailto:skeeve@__eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>>>
Date: Tuesday, 3 September 2013 7:54 AM
To: "apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>
<mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>>"
<apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>
<mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>>>
Subject: [apnic-talk] Chaining Whois Requests
Hey all,
Is there anyway, with APNIC, to setup requests to
come to your
own whois server - for your ranges?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>
<mailto:skeeve@__eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>> ;
www.eintellegonetworks.com
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com>
<http://www.__eintellegonetworks.com/
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ;
skype://skeeve
facebook.com/__eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks>
<http://facebook.com/__eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks>> ;
<http://twitter.com/__networkceoau
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>>linkedin.com/in/__skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve__>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
<http://twitter.com/__networkceoau
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>> ;
blog: www.network-ceo.net
<http://www.network-ceo.net> <http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
_________________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/__mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
<http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>
_________________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/__mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
<http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>
Adam Gosling
2 Oct
2:53 a.m.
Hi Skeeve, all
My interpretation of the policy is that leasing is not covered by APNIC policy. That is to say that it does not allow, or disallow it.
The Policy SIG Chairs asked me to assist them to draft a report on the leasing discussion from the APNIC 36 Policy SIG meeting in Xi'an.
This will be shared with the sig-policy and apnic-talk mailing lists shortly, so that the community can engage in further discussion with the benefit of the inputs already gathered from the discussion in Xi'an.
Regards,
Adam
--
Adam Gosling
Senior Policy Specialist email: adam@apnic.net
APNIC sip: adam@voip.apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
________________________________________________________________________
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
On 1/10/13 2:14 AM, "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:
Hi Elvis,
Sorry about the number of emails. I had not had the time to review the APNIC AMM meeting video as I was unable to make it to the last meeting.
Firstly, I think you are incorrect in assuming that anything not expressly permitted by the policies is forbidden. I could suggest that anything not expressly forbidden by the policies is allowed... which, imho makes more sense..... but is certainly an
arguable item ;-)
I agree with you, Dean, Tom and others... that knowing who is assigned an end-ip is very important... but, I'd like to point out a couple of things.
- At the moment we rarely know who is actually using a particular address.. especially on dynamic assignments, and mostly just identifies the LIR. Even if an end-user is identified, that is mostly a company and almost rarely a 'useful' end user of any
sorts.
- I am a big supporter of policy to clarify ambiguity, so that people know what they are and are not entitled to do.
- That said, I am ONLY a supporter of policy that can actually be enforced in some way.
- Given this position. In the situation of address space leasing, should the lessor and lessee wish to keep the matter confidential, there is almost no way for the RIR or others to even know about the situation.
I saw some at Xi'an attempt to clarify where the practice of current end-customer usage of address space was defined, but most of those arguments weren't really of any definable manner that takes into account the flexible nature of peoples business models.
Someone said that they should be a 'customer' before 'leasing' them address space. I'd argue that them leasing that space, makes them a customer... and how dare anyone attempt to define who or what I call a customer. To take Randy's (Bush) perspective...
don't tell me how to run my network - or my business..
Like prop-050 and my the arguments I raised in March 2009 (4.5 years ago) I brought up this possibility (of address leasing) and the issues involved in policing it. The issue back then was the same (from my perspective)... is that unenforceable policy
should be avoided at all costs, as it is just another document that will waste everyones time.
As Aftab pointed out... there are many companies in his region doing this already. I know of some leasing agreements in country (Australia) where the leasing agreements have been working fine for the parties involved - just not necessarily the community.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Elvis Velea
<elvis@velea.eu> wrote:
Hi Skeeve,
I saw 3 e-mails from you today. I am sorry if my message has offended you or any of your customers. It was not my intention, please accept my sincere apology.
I've re-read my previous message and it does sound a bit harsh.
My understanding (and please give me some slack here as I am new to the policies in the APNIC region) is that if something (in this case leasing) does not fall under the policies, then the act of doing that something is violating the policies.
Currently, IP addresses can be assigned or sub-allocated (delegated) by APNIC members to customers, that is correct. These can all be seen as leasing by someone, however.. these assignments or sub-allocations can only be made up to the member's AW, otherwise, they would have to request APNIC's approval. Therefore, I would say that these operations are called assignment and delegation; I would not like anyone to confuse them with leasing.
What I do want to propose is to update the transfer policy and allow 'temporary transfers' (leases) to be made.
The fact that leases are done off-book worries me, and should worry everyone in this community. The registration of these leases should be done showing who is actually using the resources.
What I was thinking to propose is to have something similar to the RIPE policy, where (parts of) an allocation can be transferred for either a permanent or a temporary period.
The temporary transfer would follow the current process, except that when the temporary period has ended, APNIC would update registration to match the original holder of the allocation.
I first need to read the process and see exactly how to make a policy proposal and then you will hear from me :-)
cheers,
elvis
On 9/30/13 4:34 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey Elvis,
I've just watched the video of the proceedings in Xi'an, and noticed you
stood up and made comments about the the issue.
Since you were there, you heard clearly that leasing is not covered by
APNIC policy.... so I am not sure of your statement "as far as I know,
leasing APNIC issued address space is not currently allowed by the
policy. Why would your customers want to violate the policy and clearly
show that in whois?" since it is clearly incorrect.
PS Adam, I know of at least a dozen of instances of IP Address leasing
in our region. It is just done off-book, and involves only the lessor
and lessee.
Btw... I am not saying this is good or bad... I am simply stating a
situation.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com <mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com> ;
www.eintellegonetworks.com <http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> ; blog:
www.network-ceo.net <http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Skeeve Stevens
<skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com <mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>>
wrote:
Elvis,
What policy do you think this falls under?
I think you will find that you are very much incorrect.
Given many (most) ISPs charge for IP addresses for their customers,
especially beyond the normal standard single allocation, I think you
would find that this would fall under leasing.
The difference from charging a client $10 per for a /29, or $500 per
month for a /24 is absolutely no different to leasing someone a /24,
/23..... /16 to them which they announce from their own transit or
ASN (or you could lease them an ASN as well).
If you can find a policy which suggest this is against policy, I
would very much like to know:
1) how it is different to the charging that most providers do today
2) how APNIC in any way could possibly enforce such a nonsense
attempt at a policy (if it exists)
I've just found Adam Goslings email of August 5th 2013 to Sig Policy
which includes:
---
Dear Colleagues,
The APNIC Secretariat notes an emerging trend toward interest in IPv4
address leasing / rental with at least one address broker offering such
a service.
This type of sub-leasing arrangement is not covered by current IPv4
addressing policy, registry services, or Member Service systems
including MyAPNIC.
....
---
This basically states that leasing and sub-leasing are not under
APNIC policy.
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com> ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ;
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>linkedin.com/in/skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> ; blog:
www.network-ceo.net <http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Elvis Velea <elvis@velea.eu
<mailto:elvis@velea.eu>> wrote:
Hi Skeeve,
as far as I know, leasing APNIC issued address space is not
currently allowed by the policy. Why would your customers want
to violate the policy and clearly show that in whois?
PS: I'm thinking to come up with a policy proposal to permit
lease of address space within APNIC. However, this policy
proposal can only be discussed and (maybe) approved at the next
APNIC meeting, in February.
cheers,
elvis
On 9/30/13 12:28 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey Byron,
Thanks for the response (only 3 weeks ;-)
I have some people who are looking at leasing address space
(in both
directions).
They are wondering that while they lease it, could they run
their own
WHOIS server, and relay queries from the lessor of the space
to the lessee.
Make sense?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>
<mailto:skeeve@__eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>> ;
www.eintellegonetworks.com
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com>
<http://www.__eintellegonetworks.com/
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/__eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks>
<http://facebook.com/__eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks>> ;
<http://twitter.com/__networkceoau
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>>linkedin.com/in/__skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve__>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
<http://twitter.com/__networkceoau
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>> ; blog:
www.network-ceo.net <http://www.network-ceo.net>
<http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Byron Ellacott
<bje@apnic.net <mailto:bje@apnic.net>
<mailto:bje@apnic.net <mailto:bje@apnic.net>>> wrote:
Hi Skeeve,
Unfortunately this is not technically possible. The
WHOIS protocol
doesn't have a referral or redirection mechanism; you
can of course
list your own server in remarks attributes, but there's
no standard
approach that lets clients follow this advice to reach
another server.
If you can share the motivation or drivers for the
request, perhaps
we can find another way to help solve the problem?
Byron
--
Byron Ellacott email:
bje@apnic.net <mailto:bje@apnic.net>
<mailto:bje@apnic.net <mailto:bje@apnic.net>>
Technical Director, APNIC sip:
bje@voip.apnic.net <mailto:bje@voip.apnic.net>
<mailto:bje@voip.apnic.net <mailto:bje@voip.apnic.net>>
http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7
3858 3100
____________________________________________________________________________
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
From: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>
<mailto:skeeve@__eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>>>
Date: Tuesday, 3 September 2013 7:54 AM
To: "apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>
<mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>>"
<apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>
<mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@apnic.net>>>
Subject: [apnic-talk] Chaining Whois Requests
Hey all,
Is there anyway, with APNIC, to setup requests to
come to your
own whois server - for your ranges?
...Skeeve
*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>
<mailto:skeeve@__eintellegonetworks.com
<mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com>> ;
www.eintellegonetworks.com
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com>
<http://www.__eintellegonetworks.com/
<http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>>
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ;
skype://skeeve
facebook.com/__eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks>
<http://facebook.com/__eintellegonetworks
<http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks>> ;
<http://twitter.com/__networkceoau
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>>linkedin.com/in/__skeeve
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
<http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve__>
twitter.com/networkceoau <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
<http://twitter.com/__networkceoau
<http://twitter.com/networkceoau>> ;
blog: www.network-ceo.net
<http://www.network-ceo.net> <http://www.network-ceo.net/>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
_________________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/__mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
<http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>
_________________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/__mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
<http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>
Activity Summary
- 3714 days inactive
- 3714 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 3 participants
- 3 comments