Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
8 Sep
2023
10:26 p.m.
Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
The title of the proposal is changed to "Clarification: Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable unless
justified in the original resource request".
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v005: Clarification: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
unless justified in the original resource request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs/NIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR/NIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If any form of leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the
original spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs/NIRs,
the link between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses
security problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource
holder who has received the license to use the addresses does not have
immediate physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage
to the entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, unless it was documented and accepted with the
original need justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard any form of leasing of addresses as
acceptable, if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to connect customers of an
LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for the use
of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6. (Address
ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8. (Reservations not
supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this issue, but an explicit
clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal
will be presented as well.
Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and originally it was
not acceptable as a justification of the need.
In AFRINIC and LACNIC, the staff has confirmed that address leasing is
not considered as valid for the justification. In ARIN it is not
considered valid as justification of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet, any
form of leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can
request direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the
case of IPv4, use private addresses or arrange transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate lack of compliance with the
original resource request justification, including suspected cases for
any form of leasing and also initiate the investigation in case of
reports by means of a form, email address or other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None. APNIC can already do this today, however, existing policies don’t
explicit them clearly.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None, unless they violate policies, but this proposal don’t change that,
only clarify it.
7. References
-------------
• https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
• https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
The title of the proposal is changed to "Clarification: Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable unless
justified in the original resource request".
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v005: Clarification: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
unless justified in the original resource request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs/NIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR/NIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If any form of leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the
original spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs/NIRs,
the link between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses
security problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource
holder who has received the license to use the addresses does not have
immediate physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage
to the entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, unless it was documented and accepted with the
original need justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard any form of leasing of addresses as
acceptable, if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to connect customers of an
LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for the use
of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6. (Address
ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8. (Reservations not
supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this issue, but an explicit
clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal
will be presented as well.
Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and originally it was
not acceptable as a justification of the need.
In AFRINIC and LACNIC, the staff has confirmed that address leasing is
not considered as valid for the justification. In ARIN it is not
considered valid as justification of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet, any
form of leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can
request direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the
case of IPv4, use private addresses or arrange transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate lack of compliance with the
original resource request justification, including suspected cases for
any form of leasing and also initiate the investigation in case of
reports by means of a form, email address or other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None. APNIC can already do this today, however, existing policies don’t
explicit them clearly.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None, unless they violate policies, but this proposal don’t change that,
only clarify it.
7. References
-------------
• https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
• https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
4
3
Replies
8 Sep
11:35 p.m.
As per the original version of this policy, it still does not deal with
a) assignment of address blocks to customers, which is a lease, and would be blocked by this policy
b) issues with terminology creep - for instance a DHCP lease or delegation (a common term)
c) the valid cases for non-assignment leasing that exist between providers and customers, growing networks or other valid use cases
d) any assignment less than a /24 that would inadvertently be caught by this because of the clumsy wording
It seems clear the policy also wants APNIC to also investigate “breaches” of use rules; and while I do not generally oppose APNIC ensuring that customers comply with their rules, this policy would seem to also compel APNIC to do so, and it’s
not clear that this is a helpful or valid use of the Secretariat’s time and limited resources.
This policy continues to paint a complex issue in black and white terms, but in doing so continues in this revision to not react to feedback that it needs to be clarified, and address the valid use cases clearly, and potentially also over reaches
its intent.
We remain opposed to it in this form, and without a substantial rewrite will continue to hold this position. Also, given there seems to be very little support for it, I wonder how long we’ll continue to receive minor amendments to it, without
the fundamental flaws in it being addressed.
Andrew
From: Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 8:26:58 AM
To: sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
Subject: [sig-policy] New version: prop-148 - Clarification: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 8:26:58 AM
To: sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
Subject: [sig-policy] New version: prop-148 - Clarification: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
Dear
SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
The title of the proposal is changed to "Clarification: Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable unless
justified in the original resource request".
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v005: Clarification: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
unless justified in the original resource request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs/NIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR/NIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If any form of leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the
original spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs/NIRs,
the link between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses
security problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource
holder who has received the license to use the addresses does not have
immediate physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage
to the entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, unless it was documented and accepted with the
original need justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard any form of leasing of addresses as
acceptable, if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to connect customers of an
LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for the use
of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6. (Address
ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8. (Reservations not
supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this issue, but an explicit
clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal
will be presented as well.
Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and originally it was
not acceptable as a justification of the need.
In AFRINIC and LACNIC, the staff has confirmed that address leasing is
not considered as valid for the justification. In ARIN it is not
considered valid as justification of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet, any
form of leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can
request direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the
case of IPv4, use private addresses or arrange transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate lack of compliance with the
original resource request justification, including suspected cases for
any form of leasing and also initiate the investigation in case of
reports by means of a form, email address or other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None. APNIC can already do this today, however, existing policies don’t
explicit them clearly.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None, unless they violate policies, but this proposal don’t change that,
only clarify it.
7. References
-------------
• https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
• https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
The title of the proposal is changed to "Clarification: Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable unless
justified in the original resource request".
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v005: Clarification: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
unless justified in the original resource request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs/NIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR/NIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If any form of leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the
original spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs/NIRs,
the link between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses
security problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource
holder who has received the license to use the addresses does not have
immediate physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage
to the entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, unless it was documented and accepted with the
original need justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard any form of leasing of addresses as
acceptable, if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to connect customers of an
LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for the use
of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6. (Address
ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8. (Reservations not
supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this issue, but an explicit
clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal
will be presented as well.
Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and originally it was
not acceptable as a justification of the need.
In AFRINIC and LACNIC, the staff has confirmed that address leasing is
not considered as valid for the justification. In ARIN it is not
considered valid as justification of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet, any
form of leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can
request direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the
case of IPv4, use private addresses or arrange transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate lack of compliance with the
original resource request justification, including suspected cases for
any form of leasing and also initiate the investigation in case of
reports by means of a form, email address or other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None. APNIC can already do this today, however, existing policies don’t
explicit them clearly.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None, unless they violate policies, but this proposal don’t change that,
only clarify it.
7. References
-------------
• https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
• https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
10 Sep
9:53 p.m.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal
will be presented as well.
In ARIN, Leasing is not permitted as justification for obtaining addresses and addresses leased
without associated connectivity are not considered utilized for the purpose of obtaining additional
addresses. However, that does not mean that leasing is not authorized. Leasing is neither authorized,
nor prohibited by ARIN policy at this time.
Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and originally it was
not acceptable as a justification of the need.
in any form in the RIPE region. That which is not prohibited is permitted.
In AFRINIC and LACNIC, the staff has confirmed that address leasing is
not considered as valid for the justification. In ARIN it is not
considered valid as justification of need.
from an RIR, one is free to utilize them for any purpose not explicitly prohibited by policy, RSA, or
the bylaws of the RIR.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
much support.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet, any
form of leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can
request direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the
case of IPv4, use private addresses or arrange transfers.
to this proposal on that basis.
Other than the first sentence, the rest of the paragraph still purports to prohibit all forms of leasing
which would include:
Providers providing dynamic addresses to customers via DHCP
Providers providing addresses to customers for a fee for a certain time period
APNIC should proactively investigate lack of compliance with the
original resource request justification, including suspected cases for
any form of leasing and also initiate the investigation in case of
reports by means of a form, email address or other means developed by APNIC.
runs contrary to their core mission (the maintenance of an accurate registry of unique delegations).
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
previously issued to XYZ Company and XYZ Company changes providers, but wishes to pay to retain
the addresses for use with their other providers, this transaction cannot be permitted. This is a common
transaction and prohibiting it would be very disruptive. Especially if that /24 is a single /24 in a /20 or
even larger block nd the entire block is revoked as a result.
Further, things change rapidly on the internet. It is not at all unusual for providers to have to pivot
to new business opportunities. This stretches far beyond leasing and seeks to cause revocations for
any shift in the business environment (or at the very least a requirement for RIR approval of any
new business model).
That’s egregious, IMHO.
Owen
_______________________________________________
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None. APNIC can already do this today, however, existing policies don’t
explicit them clearly.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None, unless they violate policies, but this proposal don’t change that,
only clarify it.
7. References
-------------
• https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
• https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
11 Sep
11:16 a.m.
Hi Owen,
RIPE continues to apply needs-tests to inter-regional transfers from ARIN. And leasing out addresses is considered to be a valid justification. The authors continue to mislead.
What problem does this policy seek to correct? Can it be stated in a single sentence rather than book form? I think a clear problem statement guides a clear discussion.
Regards,
Mike
---- On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 17:53:55 -0400 sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote ----
_______________________________________________3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal
will be presented as well.This simply isn’t the fact.In ARIN, Leasing is not permitted as justification for obtaining addresses and addresses leasedwithout associated connectivity are not considered utilized for the purpose of obtaining additionaladdresses. However, that does not mean that leasing is not authorized. Leasing is neither authorized,nor prohibited by ARIN policy at this time.Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and originally it was
not acceptable as a justification of the need.Having done away with Need as a justification, however, there is no longer a prohibition of leasingin any form in the RIPE region. That which is not prohibited is permitted.In AFRINIC and LACNIC, the staff has confirmed that address leasing is
not considered as valid for the justification. In ARIN it is not
considered valid as justification of need.Not considered as valid for justification is different from prohibited. Once one has acquired addressesfrom an RIR, one is free to utilize them for any purpose not explicitly prohibited by policy, RSA, orthe bylaws of the RIR.A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.Similar proposals have repeatedly failed in ARIN before and the current one does not, IMHO, havemuch support.4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet, any
form of leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can
request direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the
case of IPv4, use private addresses or arrange transfers.The first sentence remains incongruous with the remainder of the paragraph and I remain opposedto this proposal on that basis.Other than the first sentence, the rest of the paragraph still purports to prohibit all forms of leasingwhich would include:Providers providing dynamic addresses to customers via DHCPProviders providing addresses to customers for a fee for a certain time periodAPNIC should proactively investigate lack of compliance with the
original resource request justification, including suspected cases for
any form of leasing and also initiate the investigation in case of
reports by means of a form, email address or other means developed by APNIC.The RIRs were never intended to be the internet police and expanding their role in this mannerruns contrary to their core mission (the maintenance of an accurate registry of unique delegations).If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.This is the most objectionable part of this policy. It basically says that if a provider has a /24 that waspreviously issued to XYZ Company and XYZ Company changes providers, but wishes to pay to retainthe addresses for use with their other providers, this transaction cannot be permitted. This is a commontransaction and prohibiting it would be very disruptive. Especially if that /24 is a single /24 in a /20 oreven larger block nd the entire block is revoked as a result.Further, things change rapidly on the internet. It is not at all unusual for providers to have to pivotto new business opportunities. This stretches far beyond leasing and seeks to cause revocations forany shift in the business environment (or at the very least a requirement for RIR approval of anynew business model).That’s egregious, IMHO.Owen_______________________________________________
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None. APNIC can already do this today, however, existing policies don’t
explicit them clearly.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None, unless they violate policies, but this proposal don’t change that,
only clarify it.
7. References
-------------
• https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
• https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Activity Summary
- 81 days inactive
- 81 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 4 participants
- 3 comments