Re: IP range for lease

[bzs]

On July 5, 2023 at 19:06 nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG) wrote:
 > Karin,
 > 
 > Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion, since
 > the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in the mid
 > 1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or another. 
 > 
 > The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of
 > connectivity services. However, once the RIRs and their communities 
 > normalized
 > the sale of addresses through directed transfer policies, I think this was an
 > inevitable next step in the devolution of IPv4 into a monetized asset. 
 > 
 > It doesn’t help that the earliest and most prolific adopters of this form of
 > leasing have been snowshoe spammers. 
 > 
 > However, there are leasing agencies that insist on getting proper 
 > justification
 > from their customers and have strong anti-abuse policies. I would strongly
 > encourage you to seek out such an organization to partner with if you choose 
 > to
 > lease your addresses as there are a number of pitfalls you can encounter
 > otherwise. 
 > 
 > Owen

That was so...responsibly put. I almost thought I wasn't on nanog!

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: IP range for lease

[John Curran]

On Jul 5, 2023, at 10:06 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
...
Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion, since 
the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in the mid 
1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or another.

The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of 
connectivity services. However, once the RIRs and their communities normalized 
the sale of addresses through directed transfer policies, I think this was an 
inevitable next step in the devolution of IPv4 into a monetized asset.

It doesn’t help that the earliest and most prolific adopters of this form of 
leasing have been snowshoe spammers.

However, there are leasing agencies that insist on getting proper justification 
from their customers and have strong anti-abuse policies. I would strongly 
encourage you to seek out such an organization to partner with if you choose to 
lease your addresses as there are a number of pitfalls you can encounter 
otherwise.

To follow-up on Owen’s points and clarify just a bit (at least to respect to 
policy in the ARIN region) –

– IP address blocks in the ARIN region are issued by ARIN based upon 
operational need (as per the community-developed policy document in the Number 
Resource Policy Manual [NRPM - 
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/])

– Portions of IP address blocks are routinely “leased” by ISPs to customers, 
although such leasing has historically been as part of a bundle including 
connectivity services.

– Because one needs IP addressed to provide connectivity services, leasing of 
address space as part of providing connectivity is considered operational need 
(and as such counts towards utilization of one’s address space)

– Leasing of IP address space independent of connectivity doesn’t fulfill 
operational need, and hence doesn’t count as utilization when you come back to 
ARIN seeking additional space (or approval of a transfer inwards of an IP 
address block)

– Leasing of IP address blocks independent of connectivity is not explicitly 
recognized in ARIN number resource policy (i.e. there is no policy that 
specifically allows or prohibits such activity.)

– In the ARIN region, we have fairly clear guidelines requiring documentation 
[via SWIP, RWHOIS, RDAP…] of significant reassignment/reallocations to 
connectivity customers (as part of documenting IP address block usage), but no 
clear requirements for reporting of reissuance of space via leasing independent 
of connectivity.  Furthermore, all address blocks in the ARIN registry are 
required to have accurate abuse contacts (unless residential in which case 
accurate contacts must be in the upstream providers block.)

If folks wish to have the registry operate accordingly to some other policies, 
please submit a policy proposal 
 (or seek out a member 
of the ARIN Advisory Council  which 
helps shepherd the policy development process and can assist you with 
preparation of same…)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: IP range for lease

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Too much grey area with respect to property rights (or lack thereof) as they 
> relate to INRs. Until there is more concrete case law on the matter, which 
> isn't likely to happen in most of our careers, monetizing it will be the rule.

Hopefully IPv4 becomes irrelevant (although still used) before that
happens. That said, the history of other US high courts decisions on
critical resources (domains + numbers) is of very reasoned decisions,
so if one comes along, it will likely not be what "monetizers" would
prefer.


Rubens

Re: IP range for lease

[Tom Beecher]

>
> To summarise, if there is no longer a need, please
> do either one of the following three things:
>
> 1| send it back to the RIR;
> 2| change the word *lease* to *transfer* and
> announce your willing to transfer the INRs you hold.
> 3| do not hesitate to discuss your alternatives with
> the RIR's Staff. They are paid to support you!
>

While those are probably the most altruistic things that could be done,
almost nobody does those any more.

Too much grey area with respect to property rights (or lack thereof) as
they relate to INRs. Until there is more concrete case law on the matter,
which isn't likely to happen in most of our careers, monetizing it will be
the rule.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:00 AM Sylvain Baya  wrote:

> Dear NANOG-ers,
> Hope this email finds you in good health!
>
> Please see my comments below, inline...
>
> Le jeudi 6 juillet 2023, Owen DeLong via NANOG  a écrit :
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Karin,
>>
>> Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion,
>> since the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in
>> the mid 1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or
>> another.
>>
>>
>
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks for your email, brother.
> ...do you mean that such activity was supported by
>  a policy? or it was just a disruption of a principle
> which is fundamental; in order to guarantee that
> the common INRs (Internet Number Resources)
> are fairly distributed and not easily stockpilled?
>
>
>> The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of
>> connectivity services.
>>
>>
> So! it's a leasing of something not owned? and it
> became worse with the idea of Monkey(ing it)-In-
> The-middle (MITM)...
>
> What's the difference, please?
>
> Are you trying to change a definition, in order to
> convince this community that this sad practice
> was started at the very beginning of the INRs  distribution?
>
> What's your understanding of "need-based"?
> Why are they stocking INRs without any need to
> properly use it?
>
> ...imho! the waiting list would be less longer with
> those INRs withing the free pools.
>
>
>>
>> However, once the RIRs and their communities normalized the sale of
>> addresses through directed transfer policies, I think this was an
>>
>>
> Any RIR's policy you can share, to support your say?
>
>
>
>>
>> inevitable next step in the devolution of IPv4 into a monetized asset.
>>
>>
> What's the relation between leasing INRs and
> transfering it?
>
> Brother, you know that:
> * an INR transfer is a one time change in holdership
> * where leasing INRs is a proof that there is no
> longer any need of the community's resource held.
>
> ...imho! the communities chose a good approach
> in support to those who maintain Internet services
>  and build the Internet infrastructure. It should be
> seen as an exceptional rule, not the usual...because
>  it's an alternative when need ends.
>
> ...the other alternative, consistent with the principle,
>  is not the leasing of INRs; but the returning.
>
>
>
>>
>> It doesn’t help that the earliest and most prolific adopters of this form
>> of leasing have been snowshoe spammers.
>>
>>
> It helps to better understand how bad is the thing :'(
>
> ...please, do consider the following scenario:
>
> |1. you have a fundamental principle for INRs distribution within the
> regional RIR
> |2. for each resource holder, the RIR is responsible
> to enforce the Policy Manual
> |3. a resource holder receives some INRs from a
> regional RIR
> |4. that resource holder stops to comply to the
> principle in "1"
> |5. the INRs delegated to that resource holder are
> not used according to the community-based Policy
>  Manual
> |6. in order to justify its use, that resource holder
> assign part of the delegated INRs to its clients
> |7. the clients are asked to comply the the Policy
> Manual; including the fundamental principle in "1"
> |8. .
>
> How shall it end?
>
>
>
>>
>> However, there are leasing agencies that insist on getting proper
>> justification from their customers and have strong anti-abuse policies.
>>
>>
> Great! btw! what's their need? who need a MITM
> in the process, when it's possible to simply transfer
> the resource or simply send it back to the free pool?
>
>
>>
>> I would strongly encourage you to seek out such an organization to
>> partner with if you choose to lease your addresses as there are a number of
>> pitfalls you can encounter otherwise.
>>
>>
> ...risks are either ways! would you recommend
> to someone to put its private keys within one
> else personal's computer?
>
> Hi Karim,
> To summarise, if there is no longer a need, please
> do either one of the following three things:
>
> 1| send it back to the RIR;
> 2| change the word *lease* to *transfer* and
> announce your willing to transfer the INRs you hold.
> 3| do not hesitate to discuss your alternatives with
> the RIR's Staff. They are paid to support you!
>
> Thanks.
>
> Shalom,
> --sb.
>
>
>
>>
>

IP range for lease

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear NANOG-ers,
Hope this email finds you in good health!

Please see my comments below, inline...

Le jeudi 6 juillet 2023, Owen DeLong via NANOG  a écrit :

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karin,
>
> Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion,
> since the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in
> the mid 1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or
> another.
>
>

Hi Owen,
Thanks for your email, brother.
...do you mean that such activity was supported by
 a policy? or it was just a disruption of a principle
which is fundamental; in order to guarantee that
the common INRs (Internet Number Resources)
are fairly distributed and not easily stockpilled?


> The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of
> connectivity services.
>
>
So! it's a leasing of something not owned? and it
became worse with the idea of Monkey(ing it)-In-
The-middle (MITM)...

What's the difference, please?

Are you trying to change a definition, in order to
convince this community that this sad practice
was started at the very beginning of the INRs  distribution?

What's your understanding of "need-based"?
Why are they stocking INRs without any need to
properly use it?

...imho! the waiting list would be less longer with
those INRs withing the free pools.


>
> However, once the RIRs and their communities normalized the sale of
> addresses through directed transfer policies, I think this was an
>
>
Any RIR's policy you can share, to support your say?



>
> inevitable next step in the devolution of IPv4 into a monetized asset.
>
>
What's the relation between leasing INRs and
transfering it?

Brother, you know that:
* an INR transfer is a one time change in holdership
* where leasing INRs is a proof that there is no
longer any need of the community's resource held.

...imho! the communities chose a good approach
in support to those who maintain Internet services
 and build the Internet infrastructure. It should be
seen as an exceptional rule, not the usual...because
 it's an alternative when need ends.

...the other alternative, consistent with the principle,
 is not the leasing of INRs; but the returning.



>
> It doesn’t help that the earliest and most prolific adopters of this form
> of leasing have been snowshoe spammers.
>
>
It helps to better understand how bad is the thing :'(

...please, do consider the following scenario:

|1. you have a fundamental principle for INRs distribution within the
regional RIR
|2. for each resource holder, the RIR is responsible
to enforce the Policy Manual
|3. a resource holder receives some INRs from a
regional RIR
|4. that resource holder stops to comply to the
principle in "1"
|5. the INRs delegated to that resource holder are
not used according to the community-based Policy
 Manual
|6. in order to justify its use, that resource holder
assign part of the delegated INRs to its clients
|7. the clients are asked to comply the the Policy
Manual; including the fundamental principle in "1"
|8. .

How shall it end?



>
> However, there are leasing agencies that insist on getting proper
> justification from their customers and have strong anti-abuse policies.
>
>
Great! btw! what's their need? who need a MITM
in the process, when it's possible to simply transfer
the resource or simply send it back to the free pool?


>
> I would strongly encourage you to seek out such an organization to partner
> with if you choose to lease your addresses as there are a number of
> pitfalls you can encounter otherwise.
>
>
...risks are either ways! would you recommend
to someone to put its private keys within one
else personal's computer?

Hi Karim,
To summarise, if there is no longer a need, please
do either one of the following three things:

1| send it back to the RIR;
2| change the word *lease* to *transfer* and
announce your willing to transfer the INRs you hold.
3| do not hesitate to discuss your alternatives with
the RIR's Staff. They are paid to support you!

Thanks.

Shalom,
--sb.



>
> Owen
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2023, at 08:25, Noah  wrote:
>
> 
> Hi KARIM,
>
> Considering the fact that IPs are requested on need-basis by resource
> holders to number your own networks/systems and that of your clients?
>
> Any reason why MEKTEL would want to offer IPs for lease?
>
> Cheers,
> *.**/noah*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:16 PM KARIM MEKKAOUI  wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>

-- 

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|
Subscribe to Mailing List: 
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous
tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)