I don't understand your way to oppose this proposal. You want to oppose
it based a small subset of 'situation in other regions' text ? That your
only point to oppose this proposal ?
The text clearly says the leasing of addresses is not authorized
explicitly in the policy manuals and in most RIRs it has been already
confirmed this is not allowed in most RIRs (exactly as it should be). In
RIPE that you are picking in order to try oppose this proposal it
mentions specifically that this cannot be used as a justification of
need and it is obvious you cannot go to RIPE, ask for addresses and
justify that you will use them to lease to someone else, pretending to
be a sub-RIR. It is just simple.
In ARIN this proposal will make it very clear not only for justification
of need which is already forbidden but also later on for usage and that
is the right thing to do in order to avoid more unfairness with the
whole community in times of IPv4 exhaustion.
What is the logic for not being able to justify the need based on
leasing but be allowed to used for them for leasing later on ?
The point here is quiet simple and most people are able to understand:
if you have a need to keep IP resources as a resource holder for
justified need proposes you are fine to keep the addresses indefinitely,
if not your should either transfer them to whoever has real need or
return them back to ARIN so them can be directly assigned by ARIN to any
member who really needs them and have no intermediaries in the middle
pretending to be a RIR and bringing real security issues to the whole
Internet.
Fernando
On 10/09/2022 14:01, Mike Burns wrote:
Fernando,
Your proposal says leasing is banned at other RIRs.
I am telling you once again that leasing is NOT banned at RIPE and
leased addresses CAN be used as justification at RIPE.
I speak from direct experience.
And once again there is no policy nor contract requirement to utilize
addresses at ARIN for their originally intended purposes, ergo leasing
is not prohibited to address holders at ARIN.
Please define the word leasing as that impacts enforcement and other
issues.
This proposal remains deeply flawed.
So I remain deeply opposed.
Regards,
Mike
---- On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 12:44:10 -0400 *Fernando Frediani
<[email protected]>* wrote ---
Hello
There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives to
the current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example that
have confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for in
the text, but it is not much difficult for them to have such
interpretation given the resources must follow a proper
justification of what they will be used for and that can never be
that you will use them for leasing (rent of lend). ARIN also
already confirmed in this very same list they don't accept it as a
justification.
There is no much around the term leasing. If an organization who
don't provide any connectivity services to another simply rent or
lend IP space, with or without a cost associated that is something
that must not be since they no longer have a justification to keep
that IP space and instead should either transfer it to those who
really justify or return to ARIN.
Fernando
On 24/08/2022 11:04, Mike Burns wrote:
Opposed, I think the proposal contains errors that should be
fixed before the discussion proceeds.
For example this statement :
“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.”
If it is not in their policy manuals, how can the proposers
state leasing is not authorized?
Where do the proposers think authority comes from, if not from
policy and contract?
Are they just assuming that all things are prohibited unless
they are explicitly allowed?
That would be an interesting way to read the policy manual, if
that is the belief, we should discuss that.
Beyond that there is the very next sentence:
” Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is
not acceptable as a justification of the need. “
Once again the bias is towards prohibition despite language
about leasing being absent from RIPE policy. More to the
point, and something that can’t be drummed-home clearly enough
to this community, RIPE has no needs test at all for transfers
and hasn’t for years. And yet RIPE still exists and operates
as an RIR. Even further to the point, in the one occasion
that RIPE performs a needs-test, which is on inter-regional
transfers from ARIN, leased-out addresses are in fact
acceptable as justification. That’s because of two logical
things. First, RIPE understands that the inherent value of the
addresses drives them towards efficient use. Second, RIPE
understands that they are charged with getting addresses into
use, not getting them into use on particular networks.
So the first two sentences in the “situation at other RIRs”
are problematic/false.
Might I suggest fixing those before we move forward, and also
can you please define the word leasing?
This seems poorly though-out to me, and I haven’t started on
the meat of the proposal yet nor how it would be effectively
policed and prohibited.
Regards,
Mike
*From:* ARIN-PPML <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *ARIN
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:29 PM
*To:* PPML <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not
Intended
On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-308: Leasing Not Intended" as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/>
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The
AC will evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of
this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number
resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process
(PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
* Technically Sound
* Supported by the Community
The PDP can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/>
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/>
Regards,
Sean Hopkins
Senior Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended
Problem Statement:
“IPv6 Policy (section 6.4.1.) explicitly mention that address
space is not a property. This is also stated in the RSA
(section 7.) for all the Internet Number Resources.
However, with the spirit of the IPv4 allocation policies being
the same, there is not an equivalent text for IPv4, neither
for ASNs.
Further to that, policies for IPv4 and IPv6 allocations,
clearly state that allocations are based on justified need and
not solely on a predicted customer base. Similar text can be
found in the section related to Transfers (8.1).
Consequently, resources not only aren’t a property, but also,
aren’t allocated for leasing purposes, only for justified need
of the resource holder and its directly connected customers.
Therefore, and so that there are no doubts about it, it should
be made explicit in the NRPM that the Internet Resources
should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a direct
connectivity service. At the same time, section 6.4.1. should
be moved to the top of the NRPM (possibly to section 1.
“Principles and Goals of the American Registry for Internet
Numbers (ARIN)”.”
Policy statement:
Actual Text (to be replaced by New Text):
6.4.1. Address Space Not to be Considered Property
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the
interests of the Internet community as a whole for address
space to be considered freehold property.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding
that globally-unique IPv6 unicast address space is
allocated/assigned for use rather than owned.
New Text
1.5. Internet Number Resources Not to be Considered Property
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the
interests of the Internet community as a whole for address
space to be considered freehold property.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding
that Internet Number Resources are allocated/assigned for use
rather than owned.
ARIN allocate and assign Internet resources in a delegation
scheme, with an annual validity, renewable as long as the
requirements specified by the policies in force at the time of
renewal are met, and especially the justification of the need.
Therefore, the resources can’t be considered property.
The justification of the need, generically in the case of
addresses, implies their need to directly connect customers.
Therefore, the leasing of addresses is not considered
acceptable, nor does it justify the need, if they are not part
of a set of services based, at least, on direct connectivity.
Even in cases of networks not connected to the Internet, the
leasing of addresses is not admissible, since said sites can
request direct assignments from ARIN and even in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange transfers.
Timetable for implementation: Immediate
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 it is
not acceptable as a justification of the need. In AFRINIC,
APNIC and LACNIC, the staff has confirmed that address leasing
is not considered as valid for the justification.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
<https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
Please [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience
any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
