Hi Fernando,
Every RIR allows address holders to sell their blocks.
Let that sink in. Sell their blocks and keep the money.
If this doesn’t sit well with you, there are five RIRs to whom you can
introduce a policy change.
You can pretend companies are selling something they don’t own, you
can pretend that they are required to return unused addresses.
Neither is true in ARIN.
They are selling their rights-to-use and rights-to-register. They own
these rights, they can sell these rights, they can lease these rights.
They can return them to the RIR, too, and inexplicably some do.
And none of this is against policy. And all of this “binds to the
current rules.”
Since leasing is not against policy, it is done. In this context I
think it might be advisable to require things that mirror the
requirements historically imposed on ISPs when they re-assign space.
Regards,
Mike
*From:*ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Fernando
Frediani
*Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:54 PM
*To:* 'arin-ppml' <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy
Mike, sorry to disagree with you again about this topic.
The mechanism is to adapt the RIR policies for this new scenario where
the RIR keeps total control of it instead of delegating to private
companies to speculate on something they or their customers do not own.
Those who do things against the RIR's mandate and do not keep the
registration accurate are the ones wrong in this history. They must
bind to the current rules and not try to force the RIR to something
that may only benefit a small portion of community and very private
interests. The RIR doesn't have to adapt to all kinds of practices
just because they are being done anyway.
If this affects abuse complaints and law enforcement there is always
someone responsible to be called up, in this case the person who is
leasing (and therefore not using) the resource instead of transferring
to someone else which is permitted by current rules.
The same way there are plenty of people which find a big deviation of
the use IP space should ever have and prefer to keep this control in
the hands of the RIR so things can be done more fairly and not let
them be negotiated as a kind of real estate business.
Fernando
On 30/05/2019 14:44, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
If you search “ipv4 leasing” you will find this practice
widespread globally.
We have transitioned from the original distribution mechanism of
the RIRs before exhaust, to a new mechanism.
The new mechanism is the IPv4 market.
You are free to ignore it or tilt against it, but is the current
state of affairs.
In this state, without a specific policy regarding leasing,
leasing happens in a way that is sometimes working against the
RIR’s mandate regarding accurate registration. This has effects
for abuse complaints and law enforcement activities, so there are
probably varied constituents among the ARIN community who might
see some value in a lease policy.
In the context of the global anti-hijacking proposals which have
largely been deemed out-of-scope, a lease policy has some results
that are sympathetic to the goals of those proposals.
Regards,
Mike
*From:*ARIN-PPML <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani
*Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:46 PM
*To:* arin-ppml <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy
+1
What I am seeing by some positions are attempts to turn a
fraudulent act into "something normal" because "market demands"
and a total diversion of what IP space should ever be making look
normal a company who received IP space from the RIR and **does not
use it** rent it to someone else a ownership of a property they do
not have.
And some of these attempts come from people who apparently have
high financial interests in this deviation from purpose of IP
space, but try to make it look like it is "for the good of the
Internet".
Trying to resume it in different terms it looks like in the recent
IPv4 exhaustion times some individuals wish to go for
"all-or-nothing" and make up rules to allow them to have easy
access to IPv4 space via a shortcut and in front of many other
people, bypassing the RIR if possible regardless how.
It has always been clear to many professionals what IP allocation
by an ISP to its customers means, doesn't even need to explain
much, it is obvious, but then there are attempts to make leasing a
property they don't own something acceptable and normal.
We are here discussing rules for a waiting list to make it
something fair and that all can be treated in the same way, but
suddenly some see they feel "more equal than others" demanding to
have ways to access IP space in a more privileged way than those
who are patiently waiting. Strange times !
Shall we focus ?
Fernando
On 30/05/2019 12:25, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:26 PM Scott Leibrand<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
(New subject line for a new topic.)
You just described a lease policy: one where leasing is not
allowed. Such a policy would
have to exist to be enforced. Right now there is no policy, so
leasing is allowed because
it's not prohibited.
Actually not. ARIN's Policy does not have to contain a specific
prohibition for every form of abuse --- The PDP describes when
IP addresses can be allocated, and any intended Usage for IP
resources that is not provided by an allocation policy should not
get past ARIN's required reviews.
An organization attempting to misrepresent to ARIN the nature of
that organization and their business, the need for IP addresses, or
the intended use for IP addresses and then after receiving an allocation
proceeding to "leasing" IP addresses without services would be fraud.
"We have no allocations but want a /22 of IP addresses, b/c we intend
to open up shop and lease /24s to qualified applicants..." should Not
and even pass muster under the current policies and required reviews
--- ISPs should in fact be able to show through sufficient
connectivity
contracts, etc, that they have procured an ISP network; If they
cannot, then
they are not providing Internet Services, then they are not an ISP.
ISPs lease space to their customers all the time, bundled with IP
connectivity. [...]
No.... ISPs provide services related to global IP connectivity and
allocate
in the amount of IP addresses required for use with that ISP's services;
the IPs are not a separate thing that an ISP may offer to
others who are not current customers of their ISP business.
Hosting companies do the same. So do VPN providers.
Hosting companies and VPN providers with a working network and
customers to serve are ISPs; they are in the business of providing
internet connectivity to "devices" that are owned or rented by
external customers.
The challenge with a "no leasing allowed" policy is
differentiating ....
There is no need to differentiate. A re-assignment or allocation
is something that ISPs do to allow a customer use of IP addresses
necessary in order to have internet connectivity
through that ISP's services OR to allocate a range of IP addresses to
another ISP who is their customer, After the allocating ISP
reviews and verifies their customer's network design and
IP address justification documentation accordingly.
You can tell if an organization is an ISP, and not "Leasing" IP
addresses,
because an ISP will only allocate or assign according to justified need
respecting ARIN's required Policies and terms
regarding customers required to return IP addresses and requiring and
confirming that downstream customers adhere to required ARIN policies.
4.2.3.3 and 4.2.3.4 through 7*
"The original ISP should allow sufficient time for the renumbering
process
to be completed before requiring the address space to be returned."
"ISPs must require their downstream customers to adhere to the
following criteria: ...".
A "leasing of IPs" is a fraudulent action not authorized by the ARIN
RSA which
involves a holder of number resources purporting to Rent "ownership"
to property they do not have ---
that is, a block of IP resources as if those were a piece of property
that
may be retained or procured by an end user organization for speculative
purposes or "in case of possible future need some down the road"
without ever actually using or having a valid justification to
receive/hold
the IP resources.
--
-JH
