Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
Hi Aftab: I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on reality. Spammers merely need one to two-month space, and they disappear soon. Thus, there is no point for them to undergo this temporary transfer in order to sort out all the APNIC membership with a huge amount of paper work when they can simply pay (or hijack) for an announcement and have their spam job done. Have you ever experienced during your operation history: a spammer come to you and say, 'hey we want to have a proper RIR registration in our name. For this we are so scared that you will take away space from us while we are spamming?' Could you answer that directly? The policy which aims to bring more accurate whois database for today's leasing market of space actually forces leaser to register their leaser's information in the whois database by offering protection of leasee and leaser's interest and by agreeing to set an amount time of ownership. One of the biggest risks faced by leasee is the probability of the leaser cancelling assignment or sub-allocation. This will lead to operation problem if they are not ready for network renumbering. In this sense, the protection can be an incentive for leasees to register their information properly. On 18 August 2017 at 07:22, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > >> It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers. >> >> > And? > > >> It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able >> or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or >> sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for >> full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time. >> > > Solution is simple, if the organization is not interested in receiving the > resources as assignments and sub-allocations then just buy it. > > What is full control? creation of route-objects? or anything which can't > be done by sending an email to helpd...@apnic.net? > > >> I do not believe that spammer would benefit from this policy as they >> would have to register with APNIC as members and provide all the >> needed paperwork such as company registration papers, ID/passports, >> billing address etc... >> > > It will definitely support the spammers by all means. You temperorary > transfer resource to Spammer, they do their thing and get black listed > everywhere and then you get the resources back and ask everyone that we are > the new owner of this resource so kindly remove all the listing. REPEAT. > > >> They are much better off renting a /24 from the black market with no >> traces or documented changes ion the address block. >> > > Yup, let them pay black market rates for black market business model. > > And what will be the temporary transfer fees? same as permanent transfer > fees? or free? > > In order to resolve a corner case it will open up opertunities for > spammers. I stronly oppose it. > -- > Best Wishes, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >* > ___ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > -- -- Kind regards. Lu * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
On 18 August 2017 at 08:22, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > >> >> It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers. >> > > And? > >> >> It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able >> or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or >> sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for >> full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time. > > > Solution is simple, if the organization is not interested in receiving the > resources as assignments and sub-allocations then just buy it. > > What is full control? creation of route-objects? or anything which can't be > done by sending an email to helpd...@apnic.net? > If it is not registered to your LIR in your registry, you cannot send an email to helpd...@apnic.net as it is not your space to control in APNIC DB in the first place, but the space from your LIR that has issued the space to you, your LIR decides how to register it and which maintainers will be on it, you are not in full control. And ultimately for the ones using RPKI, it needs to be under their control to issue ROAs in MyAPNIC and not rely on any other parties for their own IP management. >> >> I do not believe that spammer would benefit from this policy as they >> would have to register with APNIC as members and provide all the >> needed paperwork such as company registration papers, ID/passports, >> billing address etc... > > > It will definitely support the spammers by all means. You temperorary > transfer resource to Spammer, they do their thing and get black listed > everywhere and then you get the resources back and ask everyone that we are > the new owner of this resource so kindly remove all the listing. REPEAT. > Following this logic, company name change and mergers should also be prevented in order to prevent washing off the space in that manner. But more specifically to the temporary transfers, not sure how that scenario would work out in real life, transfer logs are public, it would be visible what happened, that is no different from current situation of issuing more specific inetnums, taking them back and going and telling..."I didn't know what they were going to use them for". It really changes nothing at that level. There would actually be more transparency to the outside world in the process, compare to the current merger and company name changes or DB delegation, so accountability and traceability would increase, this is not what spammers and spammers purveyor look for. To get a temporary transfer they also would: A: need to be a member of APNIC B: need to provide documentation and leave behind a paper trail. That makes the recipient of a temporary transfer much more accountable than one of an assignment or sub-allocation. It also links permanently the offering party to the recipient in the transfer log. Assignments and sub-allocations are eventually removed from the Database and traces of past cooperation forgotten. >> >> They are much better off renting a /24 from the black market with no >> traces or documented changes ion the address block. > > > Yup, let them pay black market rates for black market business model. > Which they will continue to do, I really cannot see how this one would open the door to the spammers as compared to current uncontrolled and unverified system were assignments and sub-allocations can be made without APNIC's involvement nor receiving any form of documentation in regards to who the recipient is. > And what will be the temporary transfer fees? same as permanent transfer > fees? or free? > To be considered as a transfer in procedure, only difference is that they will be returned to the original LIR after an agreed upon amount of time. > In order to resolve a corner case it will open up opertunities for spammers. > I stronly oppose it. > -- > Best Wishes, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui David Hilario IP Manager Larus Cloud Service Limited p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 f: +852 29888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net e: d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
Hi David ,Aftab, Thank you for the reply. (snip) >> I do not believe that spammer would benefit from this policy as they >> would have to register with APNIC as members and provide all the >> needed paperwork such as company registration papers, ID/passports, >> billing address etc... > > > It will definitely support the spammers by all means. You temperorary > transfer resource to Spammer, they do their thing and get black listed > everywhere and then you get the resources back and ask everyone that we are > the new owner of this resource so kindly remove all the listing. REPEAT. agree. This proposal support the spammer and the LIR who support or earn income from the spammer. I'm afraid that those spammer and LIR can transfer the address resources more freely and frequency if both prop-119 and prop-118 will be a consensus. Satoru Tsurumaki > >> >> They are much better off renting a /24 from the black market with no >> traces or documented changes ion the address block. > > > Yup, let them pay black market rates for black market business model. > > And what will be the temporary transfer fees? same as permanent transfer > fees? or free? > > In order to resolve a corner case it will open up opertunities for spammers. > I stronly oppose it. > -- > Best Wishes, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > ___ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy] prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region, to be dis cussed at APNIC 44 Policy SIG
Dear APNIC Sec, Can you share some stats: - How many transfers request denied in last 12 months? - How many requests were denied just because of bad documentation? - How many transfer request you are receiving every week? - How long does it take to process a transfer request? - Does it create any administrative burden? On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 16:14 chku wrote: > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-118: No need policy in APNIC region" was discussed at > APNIC 43 Policy SIG, but did not reach consensus. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > 2017. > > Information about the proposal is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-118 > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > - Do you see any disadvantages in this 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. > > Kind Regards, > > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > --- > > prop-118-v001: No need policy in APNIC region > > --- > > Proposer: David Hilario > d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net > > > 1. Problem statement > --- > > Whenever a transfer of IPv4 is taking place within the APNIC region, the > recipient needs to demonstrate the "need" for the IPv4 space they intend > to transfer. > > Companies transferring IPv4 space to their pool do this in ordcer to > enable further growth in their network, since the space is not coming > from the free public pool, regular policies that are intended to protect > the limited pool of IPv4 space can be removed in transfers. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > --- > > Simplify transfer of IPv4 space between resource holders. > Ease some administration on APNIC staff. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > --- > > RIPE region has an all around no need policy in IPv4, even for first > allocation, transfers do not require the recipient to demonstrate their > intended use of the resources . > > ARIN, need base for both transfers and resources issued by ARIN. > > AFRINIC, need based policy on transfers (not active yet) and resource > request from AFRINIC based on needs. > > LACNIC, no transfers, need based request. > > Out of all these RIR, only ARIN and RIPE NCC have inter-RIR transfer > policies, ARIN has made clear in the past that the "no need" policy > from the RIPE region would break inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE > region. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --- > > Simply copy the RIPE policy to solve the ARIN transfer incompatibility: > > - APNIC shall accept all transfers of Internet number resources to its >service region, provided that they comply with the policies relating >to transfers within its service region. > > - For transfers from RIR regions that require the receiving region to >have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the >APNIC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within >5 years. > > source: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > --- > > Advantages: > > - Harmonisation with RIPE region. > - Makes transfer simpler and smoother within APNIC and between APNIC >and RIPE. > - maintains a compatibility with ARIN. > - Removes the uncertainty that a transfer may be rejected based on >potentially badly documented needs. > - Lowers the overall administrative burden on APNIC staff. > > Disadvantages: > > none. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > --- > None > > > 7. References > --- > > > > > ___ > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >* > ___ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy -- Best Wishes, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
> It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers. > > And? > It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able > or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or > sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for > full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time. > Solution is simple, if the organization is not interested in receiving the resources as assignments and sub-allocations then just buy it. What is full control? creation of route-objects? or anything which can't be done by sending an email to helpd...@apnic.net? > I do not believe that spammer would benefit from this policy as they > would have to register with APNIC as members and provide all the > needed paperwork such as company registration papers, ID/passports, > billing address etc... > It will definitely support the spammers by all means. You temperorary transfer resource to Spammer, they do their thing and get black listed everywhere and then you get the resources back and ask everyone that we are the new owner of this resource so kindly remove all the listing. REPEAT. > They are much better off renting a /24 from the black market with no > traces or documented changes ion the address block. > Yup, let them pay black market rates for black market business model. And what will be the temporary transfer fees? same as permanent transfer fees? or free? In order to resolve a corner case it will open up opertunities for spammers. I stronly oppose it. -- Best Wishes, Aftab A. Siddiqui * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
Thanks for the explanation. Now I have the rationale for this proposal. I can support it. Kuo Wu Sanjeev Gupta 於 2017年8月18日 週五，11:28寫道： > > > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > Mild support. > > > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? > No. > > > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > No. > > > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? > An explicit requirement that the receiving party should be a current APNIC > member > > Overall, I am not clear on how useful or often this will be, but I see no > disadvantages. This will help improve the Whois database, and document > what is currently been done off-books. It improves the paperwork. > > > > -- > Sanjeev Gupta > +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:16 PM, chku wrote: > >> Dear SIG members >> >> The proposal "prop-119: Temporary transfers" was sent to the Policy SIG >> Mailing list in May 2017. >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will >> be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September >> 2017. >> >> Information about the proposal is available from: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-119 >> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >> >> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? >> - Do you see any disadvantages in this 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. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> >> >> prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers >> >> >> >> Proposer: David Hilario >> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net >> >> 1. Problem statement >> >> >> It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary >> transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not >> want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, >> but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA". >> >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> >> >> Create a possibility for temporary transfers that would allow >> organisations to have resources directly registered under them while >> they are the custodians of these resources on the Internet. While also >> guaranteeing that the offering party will under the APNIC policy be able >> to recover the resources once the “lease” time has expired unless >> specifically renewed. >> >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> >> >> RIPE region has a concept of temporary transfers in their policies. This >> concept is not found in the other RIRs for the moment. >> >> >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> >> >> Adding to section "8.2.1. Conditions on the space to be transferred" the >> following paragraphs: It must be specified if the transfer is a >> permanent or temporary transfer. >> >> A temporary transfer must have an end date, upon the end date the >> resources will be transferred back to the same origin account or its >> successor in the event of merger and acquisitions, unless the transfer >> is specifically prolonged and confirmed by both parties. >> >> If the source account does no longer exist and has no successor, the >> space will then be returned to the origin RIR for the space. Temporary >> transfers cannot be further transferred. >> >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> >> >> Advantages: >> Gives a greater flexibility in how LIRs manage and distribute their free >> pool. Enables organisation to receive address space in the way they >> intend. >> >> Disadvantages: >> These transfers would be treated and appear as regular transfers, only >> APNIC the offering and receiving party will be aware of their temporary >> nature. >> >> Organisations receiving such space, if they further assign it, must make >> be ready to renumber/revoke space from their customers and services then >> the lease expires, this is no different than a sub-allocation and >> implies the same limitations. >> >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> >> none >> >> >> 7. References >> - >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Sig-policy-chair mailing list >> sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair >> >> *
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? Mild support. > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? No. > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? No. > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? An explicit requirement that the receiving party should be a current APNIC member Overall, I am not clear on how useful or often this will be, but I see no disadvantages. This will help improve the Whois database, and document what is currently been done off-books. It improves the paperwork. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:16 PM, chku wrote: > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-119: Temporary transfers" was sent to the Policy SIG > Mailing list in May 2017. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > 2017. > > Information about the proposal is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-119 > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > - Do you see any disadvantages in this 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. > > Kind Regards, > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers > > > > Proposer: David Hilario > d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net > > 1. Problem statement > > > It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary > transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not > want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, > but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA". > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > > Create a possibility for temporary transfers that would allow > organisations to have resources directly registered under them while > they are the custodians of these resources on the Internet. While also > guaranteeing that the offering party will under the APNIC policy be able > to recover the resources once the “lease” time has expired unless > specifically renewed. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > > RIPE region has a concept of temporary transfers in their policies. This > concept is not found in the other RIRs for the moment. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > > Adding to section "8.2.1. Conditions on the space to be transferred" the > following paragraphs: It must be specified if the transfer is a > permanent or temporary transfer. > > A temporary transfer must have an end date, upon the end date the > resources will be transferred back to the same origin account or its > successor in the event of merger and acquisitions, unless the transfer > is specifically prolonged and confirmed by both parties. > > If the source account does no longer exist and has no successor, the > space will then be returned to the origin RIR for the space. Temporary > transfers cannot be further transferred. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > > > Advantages: > Gives a greater flexibility in how LIRs manage and distribute their free > pool. Enables organisation to receive address space in the way they > intend. > > Disadvantages: > These transfers would be treated and appear as regular transfers, only > APNIC the offering and receiving party will be aware of their temporary > nature. > > Organisations receiving such space, if they further assign it, must make > be ready to renumber/revoke space from their customers and services then > the lease expires, this is no different than a sub-allocation and > implies the same limitations. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > > none > > > 7. References > - > > > > > > > > ___ > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >* > ___ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
Hi Kuo-Wei, I am the proposer. The policy came to be as we have had several large companies actually asking for such type of transfers. It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers. It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time. I do not believe that spammer would benefit from this policy as they would have to register with APNIC as members and provide all the needed paperwork such as company registration papers, ID/passports, billing address etc... They are much better off renting a /24 from the black market with no traces or documented changes ion the address block. David Hilario IP Manager Larus Cloud Service Limited p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 f: +852 29888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net e: d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net On 17 August 2017 at 14:26, Kuo-Wei Wu wrote: > Good point. Who propose this policy? And rational is? > > Kuo Wu > > Satoru Tsurumaki 於 2017年8月17日 週四，18:48寫道： >> >> I oppose this proposal. >> >> I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. >> I could not imagine the use case of this proposal except for the >> spammer who get the temporary address which set very short period, >> sent huge number of SPAM, return the address and run away. >> After that, the source organization might be "laundering" the address >> from SPAM DB, then lease this address to another spammers. >> >> I think we should oppose the proposal which might support the spammer. >> >> regards, >> >> Satoru Tsurumaki >> >> >> >> 2017-08-09 15:16 GMT+09:00 chku : >> > Dear SIG members >> > >> > The proposal "prop-119: Temporary transfers" was sent to the Policy SIG >> > Mailing list in May 2017. >> > >> > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will >> > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September >> > 2017. >> > >> > Information about the proposal is available from: >> > >> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-119 >> > >> > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >> > >> > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? >> > - Do you see any disadvantages in this 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. >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > >> > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand >> > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers >> > >> > >> > >> > Proposer: David Hilario >> > d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net >> > >> > 1. Problem statement >> > >> > >> > It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary >> > transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not >> > want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, >> > but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA". >> > >> > >> > 2. Objective of policy change >> > >> > >> > Create a possibility for temporary transfers that would allow >> > organisations to have resources directly registered under them while >> > they are the custodians of these resources on the Internet. While also >> > guaranteeing that the offering party will under the APNIC policy be able >> > to recover the resources once the “lease” time has expired unless >> > specifically renewed. >> > >> > >> > 3. Situation in other regions >> > >> > >> > RIPE region has a concept of temporary transfers in their policies. This >> > concept is not found in the other RIRs for the moment. >> > >> > >> > 4. Proposed policy solution >> > >> > >> > Adding to section "8.2.1. Conditions on the space to be transferred" the >> > following paragraphs: It must be specified if the transfer is a >> > permanent or temporary transfer. >> > >> > A temporary transfer must have an end date, upon the end date the >> > resources will be transferred back to the same origin account or its >> > successor in the event of merger and acquisitions, unless the transfer >> > is specifically prolonged and confirmed by both parties. >> > >> > If the source account does no longer exist and has no successor, the >> > space will then be returned to the origin RIR for the space. Temporary >> > transfers
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
Good point. Who propose this policy? And rational is? Kuo Wu Satoru Tsurumaki 於 2017年8月17日 週四，18:48寫道： > I oppose this proposal. > > I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. > I could not imagine the use case of this proposal except for the > spammer who get the temporary address which set very short period, > sent huge number of SPAM, return the address and run away. > After that, the source organization might be "laundering" the address > from SPAM DB, then lease this address to another spammers. > > I think we should oppose the proposal which might support the spammer. > > regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > > > > 2017-08-09 15:16 GMT+09:00 chku : > > Dear SIG members > > > > The proposal "prop-119: Temporary transfers" was sent to the Policy SIG > > Mailing list in May 2017. > > > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > > 2017. > > > > Information about the proposal is available from: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-119 > > > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > > - Do you see any disadvantages in this 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. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > > > > > prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers > > > > > > > > Proposer: David Hilario > > d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net > > > > 1. Problem statement > > > > > > It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary > > transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not > > want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, > > but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA". > > > > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > > > > > Create a possibility for temporary transfers that would allow > > organisations to have resources directly registered under them while > > they are the custodians of these resources on the Internet. While also > > guaranteeing that the offering party will under the APNIC policy be able > > to recover the resources once the “lease” time has expired unless > > specifically renewed. > > > > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > > > > > RIPE region has a concept of temporary transfers in their policies. This > > concept is not found in the other RIRs for the moment. > > > > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > > > > > Adding to section "8.2.1. Conditions on the space to be transferred" the > > following paragraphs: It must be specified if the transfer is a > > permanent or temporary transfer. > > > > A temporary transfer must have an end date, upon the end date the > > resources will be transferred back to the same origin account or its > > successor in the event of merger and acquisitions, unless the transfer > > is specifically prolonged and confirmed by both parties. > > > > If the source account does no longer exist and has no successor, the > > space will then be returned to the origin RIR for the space. Temporary > > transfers cannot be further transferred. > > > > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > > > > > > Advantages: > > Gives a greater flexibility in how LIRs manage and distribute their free > > pool. Enables organisation to receive address space in the way they > > intend. > > > > Disadvantages: > > These transfers would be treated and appear as regular transfers, only > > APNIC the offering and receiving party will be aware of their temporary > > nature. > > > > Organisations receiving such space, if they further assign it, must make > > be ready to renumber/revoke space from their customers and services then > > the lease expires, this is no different than a sub-allocation and > > implies the same limitations. > > > > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > > > > none > > > > > > 7. References > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > > sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net > > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource manageme
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
I support this proposition. As a recipient of a temporary lease from another APNIC member and used for 18 months to facilitate the transition of a POP, this facility would have been advantageous. In a IPv4 exhausted world which is not transitioning to IPv6 fast enough to avoid temporary transfers, I suspect that this policy creates a framework where address space may be able to be correctly WHOIS'ed during this type of event. I acknowledge Satoru's view below, however suspect this would be in the minority and prop-119 would make it easier to deal with offenders as they would be APNIC members with clear contact details and billing addresses. With Regards, Richard > -Original Message- > From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- > boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Satoru Tsurumaki > Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2017 8:48 PM > To: sig-policy > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at > APNIC 44 Polic y SIG > > I oppose this proposal. > > I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. > I could not imagine the use case of this proposal except for the spammer > who get the temporary address which set very short period, sent huge > number of SPAM, return the address and run away. > After that, the source organization might be "laundering" the address from > SPAM DB, then lease this address to another spammers. > > I think we should oppose the proposal which might support the spammer. > > regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > > > > 2017-08-09 15:16 GMT+09:00 chku : > > Dear SIG members > > > > The proposal "prop-119: Temporary transfers" was sent to the Policy > > SIG Mailing list in May 2017. > > > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 > > September 2017. > > > > Information about the proposal is available from: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-119 > > > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > > - Do you see any disadvantages in this 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. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Proposer: David Hilario > > d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net > > > > 1. Problem statement > > -- > > -- > > > > It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a > > temporary transfer under the current policy framework. Some > > organisations do not want to have address space registered as > > assignments or sub-allocations, but would rather have the address space > registered as "ALLOCATED PA". > > > > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > -- > > -- > > > > Create a possibility for temporary transfers that would allow > > organisations to have resources directly registered under them while > > they are the custodians of these resources on the Internet. While also > > guaranteeing that the offering party will under the APNIC policy be > > able to recover the resources once the “lease” time has expired unless > > specifically renewed. > > > > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > -- > > -- > > > > RIPE region has a concept of temporary transfers in their policies. > > This concept is not found in the other RIRs for the moment. > > > > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > -- > > -- > > > > Adding to section "8.2.1. Conditions on the space to be transferred" > > the following paragraphs: It must be specified if the transfer is a > > permanent or temporary transfer. > > > > A temporary transfer must have an end date, upon the end date the > > resources will be transferred back to the same origin account or its > > successor in the event of merger and acquisitions, unless the transfer > > is specifically prolonged and confirmed by both parties. > > > > If the source account does no longer exist and has no successor, the > > space will then be returned to the origin RIR for the space. Temporary > > transfers cannot be further transferred. > > > > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > > -- > > -- > > > > Advantages: > > Gives a greater flexibility in how LIRs manage and distribute their > > free pool. Enables organisation to receive addr
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
Hi Satoru, Thank you for sharing those views. On 17 August 2017 at 13:48, Satoru Tsurumaki wrote: > I oppose this proposal. > > I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. It actually came up a few time from larger networks who tend to want that, it is a form of long term leasing for them, they want the resources into their registry out of convenience but also due to internal procedures, they for example only want to commit for a 5 year period while preparing their IPv6 and then return the space. The do not want to receive a sub-allocation or assignment, as it needs to be part of their LIR/registry for them to be able to count it into the network inventory and use the address. Some organisation have strict policies against use of external IP space. > I could not imagine the use case of this proposal except for the > spammer who get the temporary address which set very short period, > sent huge number of SPAM, return the address and run away. I do not believe that it would not benefit spammers quite the contrary, spammers tend to want to remain as anonymous as possible, there they would need to be reviewed and approved by APNIC, meaning that all legal documents would had been shared, it would leave tracks, which is not something spammers like to leave behind. > After that, the source organization might be "laundering" the address > from SPAM DB, then lease this address to another spammers. > As oppose to when an LIR issues assignment and/or sub-allocations? I really do not see how this would benefit spammers and their suppliers more than how it currently is today? I would really not see a spammer going through those length of paperwork and leaving so much traceable documents behind. > I think we should oppose the proposal which might support the spammer. > > regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki > > > > 2017-08-09 15:16 GMT+09:00 chku : >> Dear SIG members >> >> The proposal "prop-119: Temporary transfers" was sent to the Policy SIG >> Mailing list in May 2017. >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will >> be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September >> 2017. >> >> Information about the proposal is available from: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-119 >> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >> >> - Do you support or oppose the proposal? >> - Do you see any disadvantages in this 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. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> >> >> prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers >> >> >> >> Proposer: David Hilario >> d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net >> >> 1. Problem statement >> >> >> It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary >> transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not >> want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, >> but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA". >> >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> >> >> Create a possibility for temporary transfers that would allow >> organisations to have resources directly registered under them while >> they are the custodians of these resources on the Internet. While also >> guaranteeing that the offering party will under the APNIC policy be able >> to recover the resources once the “lease” time has expired unless >> specifically renewed. >> >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> >> >> RIPE region has a concept of temporary transfers in their policies. This >> concept is not found in the other RIRs for the moment. >> >> >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> >> >> Adding to section "8.2.1. Conditions on the space to be transferred" the >> following paragraphs: It must be specified if the transfer is a >> permanent or temporary transfer. >> >> A temporary transfer must have an end date, upon the end date the >> resources will be transferred back to the same origin account or its >> successor in the event of merger and acquisitions, unless the transfer >> is specifically prolonged and confirmed by both parties. >> >> If the source account does no longer exist and has no successor, the >> space will then be returned to the origin RIR for the space. Temporary >> transfers cannot be further transferred. >> >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >>
Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
I oppose this proposal. I would like to know who and why need the "temporary" address. I could not imagine the use case of this proposal except for the spammer who get the temporary address which set very short period, sent huge number of SPAM, return the address and run away. After that, the source organization might be "laundering" the address from SPAM DB, then lease this address to another spammers. I think we should oppose the proposal which might support the spammer. regards, Satoru Tsurumaki 2017-08-09 15:16 GMT+09:00 chku : > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-119: Temporary transfers" was sent to the Policy SIG > Mailing list in May 2017. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 44 which will > be held in Taichung, Taiwan on Wednesday and Thursday, 14 & 15 September > 2017. > > Information about the proposal is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-119 > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > - Do you see any disadvantages in this 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. > > Kind Regards, > > Sumon, Ching-Heng, Bertrand > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > prop-119-v001: Temporary transfers > > > > Proposer: David Hilario > d.hila...@laruscloudservice.net > > 1. Problem statement > > > It is currently not possible for an organisation to receive a temporary > transfer under the current policy framework. Some organisations do not > want to have address space registered as assignments or sub-allocations, > but would rather have the address space registered as "ALLOCATED PA". > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > > Create a possibility for temporary transfers that would allow > organisations to have resources directly registered under them while > they are the custodians of these resources on the Internet. While also > guaranteeing that the offering party will under the APNIC policy be able > to recover the resources once the “lease” time has expired unless > specifically renewed. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > > RIPE region has a concept of temporary transfers in their policies. This > concept is not found in the other RIRs for the moment. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > > Adding to section "8.2.1. Conditions on the space to be transferred" the > following paragraphs: It must be specified if the transfer is a > permanent or temporary transfer. > > A temporary transfer must have an end date, upon the end date the > resources will be transferred back to the same origin account or its > successor in the event of merger and acquisitions, unless the transfer > is specifically prolonged and confirmed by both parties. > > If the source account does no longer exist and has no successor, the > space will then be returned to the origin RIR for the space. Temporary > transfers cannot be further transferred. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > > > Advantages: > Gives a greater flexibility in how LIRs manage and distribute their free > pool. Enables organisation to receive address space in the way they > intend. > > Disadvantages: > These transfers would be treated and appear as regular transfers, only > APNIC the offering and receiving party will be aware of their temporary > nature. > > Organisations receiving such space, if they further assign it, must make > be ready to renumber/revoke space from their customers and services then > the lease expires, this is no different than a sub-allocation and > implies the same limitations. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > > none > > > 7. References > - > > > > > > > > ___ > Sig-policy-chair mailing list > sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy-chair > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > ___ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://ma
