Re: [sig-policy] Leasing and needs based allocation
Thanks for clarifying those points. That position certainly makes me
more comfortable. There is something about leasing out address space
which makes me feel like a party is operating outside of the intent of
the bulk of policies that we as a community have sought to develop.
I wonder if the policies allow this point to be extended to assert
that if a party is in the position where they are looking to
redistribute or on-sell addresses allocated to them, that they are
clearly demonstrating that they no longer have a 'need' for IPv4
resources on a technical basis for use in an operation network under
their control.
They would therefore be ineligible to receive any further IP addresses
from an RIR, either by direct allocation, or via a transfer (which
required a 'needs-based' demonstration).
Effectively this would mean that anyone who leases address space to
parties outside of their operational control can not receive any
further address space.
Regards,
Dean
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean at internetnz dot net dot nz
To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic dot net> wrote:
> Hello Dean,
>
> I believe the term "needs based" in our context has always implied a technical need, for use of the addresses in operational networks which are under the control of the requestor; which is assessed by APNIC hostmasters on the basis of technical plans and policies.
>
> It has never encompassed administrative or commercial "needs", such as the desire to redistribute or on-sell the addresses to others. If we were to allow such "needs" to be recognised, then I personally believe, and firmly, that this would put APNIC's policies outside of the prevailing interpretation of "needs-based" particularly as currently required by ARIN, in order for APNIC members to receive transfers from ARIN.
>
> You might want to take a look at the ARIN NRPM, here:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight4
>
>> 8.4. Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients
>>
>> Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.
>
>
> ARIN's policies may of course change in future, but this view reflects the current situation as I understand it.
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 02/10/2013, at 4:19 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone.
>>
>> I'm currently in the process of working to establish what the New
>> Zealand Internet community thinks about the issue of IP Address
>> leasing.
>>
>> One question which came up was around leasing and needs based allocation.
>>
>> So a question for the secretariat.
>> Would leasing of IP addresses be considered a valid 'need' under
>> current allocation policy.
>>
>> As an example. If a new APNIC member were to apply for their /22 from
>> 103/8 and the justification was "I need 1024 addresses which I intend
>> to lease on a per monthly basis to other users", would that be
>> sufficient justification under current policy?
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Regards,
>> Dean
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dean Pemberton
>>
>> Technical Policy Advisor
>> InternetNZ
>> +64 21 920 363 (mob)
>> dean at internetnz dot net dot nz
>>
>> To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>