Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Satoru Tsurumaki]

Dear David,

Thaank you for your comment.

The main point of our concern is if proposed with a set with prop-118,
it may encourage the IP address to be used for abusive activities, to
be able to regularly change IP address in a short time span.

Please see my comments inline as clarifications on feedback from the
Japanese community.


2017-09-08 17:52 GMT+08:00 David Hilario :
> Dear Satoru,
>
> Thank you for conveying the feedback here.
>
>
> On 8 September 2017 at 09:32, Satoru Tsurumaki
>  wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>
>> Satoru Tsurumaki, with Policy Working Group hat.
>>
>> I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-119,
>> based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
>>
>>
>> Many comments against this proposal were expressed. On the other hand,
>> some expressed support for temporary transfer as a measure to increase
>> accuracy in database.
>>
>>
>> Concerns/Opposing comments:
>> * Cannot understand the need of leasing, nor use of prefixes where
>> leasing is appropriate. Leasing of address space could encourage
>> prefixes to be used for abuse. (As it accommodates change of address
>> range if black listed)
>>
>
> The space will come from one LIR and returned to the same LIR.
> It really isn't the offering LIRs interest to have their space blacklisted.
> This is not different than when an LIR issues an IP delegation such as
> an Assignment of sub-allocation in the APNIC Database, just the lease
> is a bit more "formal: in that it is shown as a transfer of authority
> in the Database.
>
>> * It will be costly to the APNIC region to adopt complex scheme of leasing.
>>
>
> Same procedure as with any regular transfer, with the addition of a
> return timer.
> That should not be too costly.


I wasn't being clear enough here.

It will require some changes in APNIC database/WHOIS and add/change
the operations of hostmaster to accommodate temporary transfers as
well as for NIRs. The comment here was that it is not sure whether
there is enough benefit to balance these costs (which is not just
direct financial costs).


>
>> * Leasing should not be allowed to a third party where lease source do
>> not provide connectivity, to avoid fragmentation. Leasing should be
>> only within the scope where LIRs can take responsibility.
>>
>
> LIRs are currently allowed to issue address space to other
> organisation by giving them either Assignments or sub-allocations
> depending on their needs of their customers.
>
> So Policy wise this is already a fact that it is allowed, the
> temporary transfers would only formalise the transfer of authority in
> the APNIC database, also giving the recipient access to all the
> required tools to manage the space via MyAPNIC just like any other
> address space they have.

The implications of allowing lease to those who have connectivity with
LIRs and those who do not are not the same.

Under the current policy, LIRs must only delegate address space to
networks which they provide connectivity.


https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#Part-1:-Policy-Environment

3.1.3. Aggregation

Address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address ranges.

Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a
hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network
infrastructure. This is necessary to permit the aggregation of routing
information by network operators, and to limit the expansion of
Internet routing tables.

This goal is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size
of the total address pool creates significant implications for both
internal and external routing.

It is a condition of all delegations made under initial or subsequent
LIR delegation criteria, that the address space is aggregated by the
LIR within a minimum number of route announcements (preferably one).

LIRs must only delegate addresses to customers who will be using those
addresses in relation to network connectivity services provided by the
LIR.

LIRs are expected to enter into agreements with their customers
specifying that the end-user will hold the addresses only for so long
as the end-user remains a customer of that LIR. Such agreements should
also be consistent with the license under which the address space is
being used by the LIR.

>
>
>> Supportive comments/Suggestions:
>> * It is better to allow temporary transfers and reflect the correct
>> user of an address prefix, than a situation where registry database
>> can no longer point to correct user of a prefix
>> * Period of lease should be specified, such as for two years
>
> That should be specified and agreed upon by the offering and receiving
> parties and communicated to APNIC.
>
>> * A suggestion to evaluate purpose of the address usage when approving
>> its request
>
> It should be evaluated like any other transfer.
> No distinction in the process, if the need base policy is still there,
> then it 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[David Hilario]

Hi,


On 12 September 2017 at 20:04, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Lu Heng  wrote:
>
> Hi Aftab:
>
> I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on
> reality.
>
>
> Aftab’s description of spammer operations is very much based in 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.
>
>
> You’d be surprised.
>
> 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?’
>
>
> Usually they aim for RIR registration in the name of one of their shell
> companies, but I don’t see any reason that this temporary transfer policy
> wouldn’t also be used that way.
>
> 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.
>
>
> In my observation, the primary users of today’s “leasing market” of IPv4
> address space are, in fact, snowshoe spammers, so you’re kind of making
> Aftab’s case here.
>

Yes, they need short time "lease" which they get through PA
registration, one quick SWIP and they have the network they need for
the coming days/weeks/months, they do not intended to lease on basis
of years or even quarterly so semi annual basis, they need short
terms, they also do not need large amounts a /24 or slightly more is
enough, they need them often, new and clean, that would not be easier
by having a temporary transfer policy in place.

For what its worth, the cheapest and fastest manner for anyone is
actually opening memberships at APNIC or RIPE, you get guaranteed
fresh blocks.
Only thing one needs to do is register a new company, infrastructure
to justify the IPs with APNIC is already there anyways if you are in
that business.
So if we are talking about spammers the new LIR process is where they
have the most friendly interface to deal with, rather then dealing
with established LIRs that do not want to see their address space
blacklisted.

I unfortunately have no clue how this can be reduced through policy,
but this is a reality.
As long as we have space reserved for new entrants, we will offer a
fresh IP service to networks in need of that alonside all the others
who have a genuine need.

It was mentioned today during prep-116, a membership is cheaper than a
transfer in the first place, small amount of space is just cheaper by
opening new memberships.


Changing any process in the other parts of the IPV4 policy does not
render the work of spammer easier when it already cannot be easier
than that to procure fresh new IPs on demand via the RIR directly.

Regards,
David

> Owen
>
>
> 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, 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[David Hilario]

Hi Hossain and Hiroki,

Thank you for the question,


Yes the agreement between the offering party and receiving party would
need to have an end date for the transfer for the transfer to be
defined as and handled as temporary.

Duration of the transfer is up to the offering and receiving party.

For the rest, it should be treated like any other transfer request no
difference.



Regards,
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 10 September 2017 at 10:09, Jahangir Hossain  wrote:
> In the policy it only says "A temporary transfer must have an end date".
> What about the end date ? Who will define the end ?  Is it define by
> requester who are interest to temporary transfer resource to receiver ?
>
>
>
>
> Regards / Jahangir
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:16 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
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 18, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Lu Heng  wrote:
> 
> Hi Aftab:
> 
> I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on 
> reality. 

Aftab’s description of spammer operations is very much based in 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.

You’d be surprised.

> 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?’

Usually they aim for RIR registration in the name of one of their shell 
companies, but I don’t see any reason that this temporary transfer policy 
wouldn’t also be used that way.

> 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.

In my observation, the primary users of today’s “leasing market” of IPv4 
address space are, in fact, snowshoe spammers, so you’re kind of making Aftab’s 
case here.

Owen

> 
> 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

*  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

[Owen DeLong]

I oppose this policy.

Any legitimate case for a “temporary transfer” that I can envision would be 
supported through SWIP from an LIR providing services.

Otherwise, this amounts to a lease-style transaction which is most popular when 
related to activities that are generally considered harmful to the internet 
(snowshoe spamming being the most common example).

Owen

> On Aug 9, 2017, at 2:16 AM, 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
> <00.txt>*  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] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Jahangir Hossain]

In the policy it only says "A temporary transfer must have an end date".
What about the end date ? Who will define the end ?  Is it define by
requester who are interest to temporary transfer resource to receiver ?





*Regards / Jahangir *

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:16 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   *
___
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

[Hiroki Kawabata]

Dear David,

We support this proposal in general but we have one comment.

In your proposal, we cannot see the period of temporary transfer.
We think that it is better to limit the period.
For example, when they are going to back it within 2 years, the applicant can 
use this temporary transfer policy.

Regards,
Hiroki

---
Hiroki Kawabata(kawab...@nic.ad.jp)
Hostmaster, IP Address Department
Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)


Subject: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 
44 Polic  y SIG
From: chku <c...@twnic.net.tw>
Date: Wed Aug 09 2017 15:16:20 GMT+0900


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://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[David Hilario]

Dear Satoru,

Thank you for conveying the feedback here.


On 8 September 2017 at 09:32, Satoru Tsurumaki
 wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> Satoru Tsurumaki, with Policy Working Group hat.
>
> I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-119,
> based on a meeting we organised on 5th Sep to discuss these proposals.
>
>
> Many comments against this proposal were expressed. On the other hand,
> some expressed support for temporary transfer as a measure to increase
> accuracy in database.
>
>
> Concerns/Opposing comments:
> * Cannot understand the need of leasing, nor use of prefixes where
> leasing is appropriate. Leasing of address space could encourage
> prefixes to be used for abuse. (As it accommodates change of address
> range if black listed)
>

The space will come from one LIR and returned to the same LIR.
It really isn't the offering LIRs interest to have their space blacklisted.
This is not different than when an LIR issues an IP delegation such as
an Assignment of sub-allocation in the APNIC Database, just the lease
is a bit more "formal: in that it is shown as a transfer of authority
in the Database.

> * It will be costly to the APNIC region to adopt complex scheme of leasing.
>

Same procedure as with any regular transfer, with the addition of a
return timer.
That should not be too costly.

> * Leasing should not be allowed to a third party where lease source do
> not provide connectivity, to avoid fragmentation. Leasing should be
> only within the scope where LIRs can take responsibility.
>

LIRs are currently allowed to issue address space to other
organisation by giving them either Assignments or sub-allocations
depending on their needs of their customers.

So Policy wise this is already a fact that it is allowed, the
temporary transfers would only formalise the transfer of authority in
the APNIC database, also giving the recipient access to all the
required tools to manage the space via MyAPNIC just like any other
address space they have.


> Supportive comments/Suggestions:
> * It is better to allow temporary transfers and reflect the correct
> user of an address prefix, than a situation where registry database
> can no longer point to correct user of a prefix
> * Period of lease should be specified, such as for two years

That should be specified and agreed upon by the offering and receiving
parties and communicated to APNIC.

> * A suggestion to evaluate purpose of the address usage when approving
> its request

It should be evaluated like any other transfer.
No distinction in the process, if the need base policy is still there,
then it should be evaluated with a need base evaluation and approval.

>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Satoru Tsurumaki
> Policy Working Group
> Japan Open Policy Forum
>
> 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
>> 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[David Hilario]

Dear Adam,



On 1 September 2017 at 11:09, Adam Gosling  wrote:
> Dear David,
>
>
>
> The APNIC Secretariat is reviewing the policy proposals under discussion and
> seeks clarification to better understand the intention of prop-119-v001:
> Temporary transfers.
>
>
>
> APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and
> only requires clarification to ensure correct implementation should the
> proposal reach consensus.
>
>
>
> - Will recipient organisations of a temporary transfer be required to be an
> APNIC account holder?
>
>

The same as under the current transfer policy.
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/#conditions

>
> - Will Historical Resources be covered by this policy?
>
>

Yes, to the extent that if historical resource holders would like to
make use of the policy, they could.
It would be no different from today that the space loses its
historical status, this policy is not aiming at changing this.

Since the current APNIC document states "All transferred resources are
subject to all applicable APNIC policies":
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/#conditions

As a consequence of the use of the temporary transfer, the offering
party would be required to be an APNIC account holder or member or NIR
account holder or member,  in order to be able to receive the address
space back at the end of the lease, the space would also not regain
its historical status at that moment as the conversion is a one way
conversion.

That would be a consequence of making use of the temporary policy and
the current way they are being handled, I am not seeking in limiting
or changing the way historical resources are being handled.

>
> The Secretariat believes an administrative and legal review of this proposal
> is required. Further questions may arise as a result of that review.
>
>
>
> We appreciate your clarification.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Adam Gosling
>
> Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC
>
> e: a...@apnic.net
>
> p: +61 7 3858 3142
>
> m: +61 421 456 243
>
> www.apnic.net
>
> ___
>
>
>
> Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/9/17, 17:31, "sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Masato
> Yamanishi"  myama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
>
>
> Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not.
>
>
>
>>Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
> to not having them at all.
>>You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database,
>>you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
>
> I'm afraid you just rephrased what you wrote previously, which was not clear
> for me. So still unclear.
>
> Let me ask more specifically.
>
> What do you mean by "full control of the resources in the APNIC database"?
>
> What do you mean by "control the RPKI or reverse delegation"?
>
> Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to manage
> RPKI or reverse delegation?
>
> Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to point NS
> record of assigned space to their customer?
>
>
>>If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object
>> it?
>
>
>
> NO. I don't think it is enough justification nor problem statement to
> propose the policy, in particular for v4.
>
>
>
> Still, against for this proposal.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-08-23 21:01 GMT-07:00 David Hilario :
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi  wrote:
>> Hi Proposer,
>>
>> I have same view as Mr. David Huberman.
>> From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
>>
>>>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".
>>
>>
>> or your message on Aug 17th,
>>
>>>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.

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Adam Gosling]

Dear David,

The APNIC Secretariat is reviewing the policy proposals under discussion and 
seeks clarification to better understand the intention of prop-119-v001: 
Temporary transfers.

APNIC remains neutral and objective about the outcome of this discussion and 
only requires clarification to ensure correct implementation should the 
proposal reach consensus.

- Will recipient organisations of a temporary transfer be required to be an 
APNIC account holder?

- Will Historical Resources be covered by this policy?

The Secretariat believes an administrative and legal review of this proposal is 
required. Further questions may arise as a result of that review.

We appreciate your clarification.

Regards,

Adam

___
Adam Gosling
Senior Internet Policy Analyst, APNIC
e: a...@apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3142
m: +61 421 456 243
www.apnic.net
___

Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/
___



On 1/9/17, 17:31, 
"sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
on behalf of Masato Yamanishi" 
 
on behalf of myama...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi David,

Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not.

>Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
to not having them at all.
>You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database,
>you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.

I'm afraid you just rephrased what you wrote previously, which was not clear 
for me. So still unclear.
Let me ask more specifically.
What do you mean by "full control of the resources in the APNIC database"?
What do you mean by "control the RPKI or reverse delegation"?
Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to manage RPKI 
or reverse delegation?
Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to point NS 
record of assigned space to their customer?

>If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?

NO. I don't think it is enough justification nor problem statement to propose 
the policy, in particular for v4.

Still, against for this proposal.

Regards,
Matt


2017-08-23 21:01 GMT-07:00 David Hilario 
>:
Hi,


On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi 
> wrote:
> Hi Proposer,
>
> I have same view as Mr. David Huberman.
> From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
>
>>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".
>
>
> or your message on Aug 17th,
>
>>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.
>
>
> or your another message on Aug 17th,
>
>>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.
>
>
> or your another message on Aug 18th,
>
>>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 could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as well as
> the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy.
> Rather, it 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[David Hilario]

Hi Matt,


On 1 September 2017 at 10:30, Masato Yamanishi  wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not.
>
>>Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
> to not having them at all.
>>You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database,
>>you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
>
> I'm afraid you just rephrased what you wrote previously, which was not clear
> for me. So still unclear.
> Let me ask more specifically.
> What do you mean by "full control of the resources in the APNIC database"?

You have your own maintainer on the resources and simply manage
everything yourself, just like if the space was directly allocated to
you by APNIC.
No changes in your organisation and in any of your systems on how to
provision the address space and link it to the APNIC database.

> What do you mean by "control the RPKI or reverse delegation"?

All managed on your own through the normal platform issued by APNIC,
you do not need to rely on 3rd party for the setup or management of
these functionalities.

Same as you will control the route objects creations and any more
specific inetnum creations in the APNIC Database.

> Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to manage
> RPKI or reverse delegation?

Mainly internal rules, security related, many organisations prefers to
be in charge of things where they can, and not rely on third parties,
not everyone is outsourcing.

If you rely on another LIR, you rely entirely on a third party not to
screw up, can be as simple as a bad script,  during the whole leasing
period.
Or you can have a temporary transfer and the only one that can screw
up is your own organisation or APNIC, you simply reduce the risk
factors.

> Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to point NS
> record of assigned space to their customer?
>

Same as above, to be in control, and not outsourcing to third parties
when one can avoid it.

>>If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object
>> it?
>
> NO. I don't think it is enough justification nor problem statement to
> propose the policy, in particular for v4.
>

Why?
Where would the adverse effect be to the community or the IPv4 pool in
general from that policy proposal?
It only offers an option to some organisation.

> Still, against for this proposal.
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
>
> 2017-08-23 21:01 GMT-07:00 David Hilario :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi  wrote:
>> > Hi Proposer,
>> >
>> > I have same view as Mr. David Huberman.
>> > From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
>> >
>> >>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".
>> >
>> >
>> > or your message on Aug 17th,
>> >
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >
>> > or your another message on Aug 17th,
>> >
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >
>> > or your another message on Aug 18th,
>> >
>> >>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 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Masato Yamanishi]

Hi David,

Oh, I thought I had replied, but seems not.

>Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
to not having them at all.
>You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database,
>you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.

I'm afraid you just rephrased what you wrote previously, which was not
clear for me. So still unclear.
Let me ask more specifically.
What do you mean by "full control of the resources in the APNIC database"?
What do you mean by "control the RPKI or reverse delegation"?
Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to manage
RPKI or reverse delegation?
Why your customer cannot or doesn't want to ask their upstream to point NS
record of assigned space to their customer?

>If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object
it?

NO. I don't think it is enough justification nor problem statement to
propose the policy, in particular for v4.

Still, against for this proposal.

Regards,
Matt


2017-08-23 21:01 GMT-07:00 David Hilario :

> Hi,
>
>
> On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi  wrote:
> > Hi Proposer,
> >
> > I have same view as Mr. David Huberman.
> > From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
> >
> >>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".
> >
> >
> > or your message on Aug 17th,
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >
> > or your another message on Aug 17th,
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >
> > or your another message on Aug 18th,
> >
> >>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 could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as
> well as
> > the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy.
> > Rather, it sounds some kind of "nice to have" which is not enough
> > justification as the problem statement for v4 space in these days.
> >
>
> Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
> to not having them at all.
> You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database,
> you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.
>
> So it is a bit more than simply "nice to have", but indeed, it would
> be nice to have.
>
> Being able to have full control for X amount of time would be "nice to
> have" for those who want to have it for their own organisation.
>
> If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object
> it?
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Masato
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-08-22 18:47 GMT-07:00 David Hilario  net>:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I oppose this proposal as written.
> >>
> >> I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
> >>
> >>
> >> All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full
> >> control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
> >>
> >> There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely
> >> administrative.
> >>
> >> I
> >>
> >>  

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[David Hilario]

Hi,


On 23 August 2017 at 10:32, Masato Yamanishi  wrote:
> Hi Proposer,
>
> I have same view as Mr. David Huberman.
> From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,
>
>>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".
>
>
> or your message on Aug 17th,
>
>>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.
>
>
> or your another message on Aug 17th,
>
>>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.
>
>
> or your another message on Aug 18th,
>
>>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 could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as well as
> the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy.
> Rather, it sounds some kind of "nice to have" which is not enough
> justification as the problem statement for v4 space in these days.
>

Simply speaking not having the resources in MyAPNIC is equivalent as
to not having them at all.
You do not have full control of the resources in the APNIC database,
you do not control the RPKI or reverse delegation.

So it is a bit more than simply "nice to have", but indeed, it would
be nice to have.

Being able to have full control for X amount of time would be "nice to
have" for those who want to have it for their own organisation.

If someone wants it to be possible, I don't see the reason to why object it?


> Regards,
> Masato
>
>
>
> 2017-08-22 18:47 GMT-07:00 David Hilario :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I oppose this proposal as written.
>>
>> I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
>>
>>
>> All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full
>> control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
>>
>> There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely
>> administrative.
>>
>> I
>>
>>  believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and
>> the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and
>> leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
>>
>>
>> From a business point of view, this policy came as a reaction to requests
>> from customers, yes.
>>
>> Policies are there to accommodate the distribution and operation of the
>> various parties operating in the region.
>>
>> Some see a benefit in having a system like this in place, attacking the
>> policy based on our company's services is a bit odd at best.
>>
>> Some organization's are not willing to buy IPv4 space as a form of
>> permanent transfer, they do not believe in IPv4 remaining the dominant
>> protocol for the years to come but do need some IPs for some expansion and
>> projects that they can later simply return back, other giant internet
>> organizations with too much money don't care and are currently buying up
>> everything on offer.
>>
>> This proposal would help leveling that field a bit.
>>
>>
>> If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the
>> Membership Agreement (found at:
>> https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/
>> ), then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Masato Yamanishi]

Hi Proposer,

I have same view as Mr. David Huberman.
>From the problem statement of prop-119 which says,

>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".


or your message on Aug 17th,

>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.


or your another message on Aug 17th,

>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.


or your another message on Aug 18th,

>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 could not imagine concrete usecase or requesters of this policy as well
as the reason why you and/or they cannot live with current policy.
Rather, it sounds some kind of "nice to have" which is not enough
justification as the problem statement for v4 space in these days.

Regards,
Masato



2017-08-22 18:47 GMT-07:00 David Hilario :

> Hi,
>
> On Aug 23, 2017 1:42 AM, "David Huberman" 
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I oppose this proposal as written.
>
> I do not believe this policy proposal benefits network operations.
>
>
> All your resources would be under your APNIC account, you are in full
> control for everything from Database registration, RPKI and reverse DNS.
>
> There is some advantages to network operation, it is not purely
> administrative.
>
> I
>
>  believe it is intended to further the goals of the policy proposer and
> the company he owns/works at, which exists to earn money from the sale and
> leasing of IP address blocks (per their website).
>
>
> From a business point of view, this policy came as a reaction to requests
> from customers, yes.
>
> Policies are there to accommodate the distribution and operation of the
> various parties operating in the region.
>
> Some see a benefit in having a system like this in place, attacking the
> policy based on our company's services is a bit odd at best.
>
> Some organization's are not willing to buy IPv4 space as a form of
> permanent transfer, they do not believe in IPv4 remaining the dominant
> protocol for the years to come but do need some IPs for some expansion and
> projects that they can later simply return back, other giant internet
> organizations with too much money don't care and are currently buying up
> everything on offer.
>
> This proposal would help leveling that field a bit.
>
>
> If the policy proposal has shed light on some deficiencies in the
> Membership Agreement (found at: https://www.apnic.net/abou
> t-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/ ),
> then I suggest it would be helpful for the policy proposer to work with
> APNIC staff and/or the EC, rather than through the Policy SIG.
>
>
> I really don't follow your logic here.
>
>
> Thank you,
> David
>
> David Huberman | Principal Program Manager
> Oracle Cloud
> 1501 4th Ave #1800
> Seattle, WA 98101
> USA
>
>
> *  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
>
>
> Regards,
> David Hilario
>
> *  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>*
> ___
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Lu Heng]

Hi

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 16:30 Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

>
> Hi Aftab:
>>
>> I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on
>> reality.
>>
>
> Actually, you are right. I have no experience of running or facilitating
> any spammer operations.
>

so on what basis you found your argument such policy will facilitating
spammer operations vaild?



>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what sort of huge paper work is required?
>

Check APNIC member registration requirement.


>
>> 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?
>>
>
> nah, I'll pass.
>

Anyone with real operational experience will have encountered spammer
request, or a server being hacked by spammer or lease by spammer with fake
account, it surprise me you wholely base your argument on potential
increasing spam acitivity while have no real experience in anti spam
operations.

>
>
>> The policy which aims to bring more accurate whois database
>>
>
> This advantage is not mentioned in the policy.
>

The results is obvious.

>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Your point is valid in terms of leasing but there is a fundamental problem
> in my opinion.
>
> As per APNIC Internet Number Resource Policy
> :
>
> 4.0. Resource License
>
> It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests
> of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be
> considered freehold property.
>
> Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources.
> Organizations that use them are considered "custodians" rather than
> "owners" of the resource, and are not entitled to sell or otherwise
> transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this
> document.
>
> Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be
> distributed according to demonstrated need.
> The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that
> globally-unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.
> ==
>
> And as per the Member's Obligation in membership agreement
> 
>  3.2
> (d) The Member must comply with this agreement and all APNIC Documents.
>
> So IMO (though I'm not a lawyer but I watch Suits if that counts), if an
> APNIC member is currently leasing IP addresses then they are in breach of
> the membership agreement.
>
> Probably APNIC Secretariat can clarify that further.
>

Therefore(in the assumption your reading of the document is correct) the
membership agreement need to be updated, our goal here is to maintain an
accurate registry, and policy are what sets rules for using IPs, not
contract, lawyers have no rights in the bottom up process to tell operators
how to use their space.


>
>> 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 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Lu Heng]

Hi Fakrul:

"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 Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:05 Fakrul Alam  wrote:

> Just to have a better understanding; what is the tenure of "Temporary
> Transfers"? In the policy it only says "A temporary transfer must have an
> end date". What about the end date as 2999?
>
> As other policies working more on Lowers the overall administrative burden
> on APNIC staff; I think this policy creates additional overhead on the
> APNIC staff.
>
> Thanks
> Fakrul
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Ernest Tse 
> wrote:
>
>> ​Hi all,
>>
>> Can I know what is the point of this 'Temporary transfers' proposal ?
>> If someone needed a block for sending spamming, nowadays it also can do,
>> no need temporary transfers policy.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>> Ernest Tse
>> Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.
>> // Web: http://www.pacswitch.com
>> // Tel:  +852-21570550 <+852%202157%200550>
>> //Mobile: +852-62536678 <+852%206253%206678>
>> //Skype: codesixs
>>
>> On Fri, 18/08/2017 14.38, Lu Heng  wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>> 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Ernest Tse]

​The mainly discuss is the reason for temporary transfers, but not at the APNIC 
staff work load 
(As we know APNIC have a lot money to serve us and can hire more staffs, what 
we paid for the yearly fee)








Best Regards,













Ernest Tse

Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.

// Web: 
https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=xF2otKml8FKK0iLyO1O8hgJEEKE0n4lX3qwSddKMZq8-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpUwFaW57feyIQxnl89nw3F2Ey8n9caS6t72tmLZOB6MfeeP3-2B4DpGl-2BC-2B26fHJCFF3rEeVLUAD2rdHGdeecXz5i1KkyvTr8y7Fx-2F7ImKvXGqyIJbk56sScNDr8VEsiOhSVz9f7xL4lj8sW773pjhrgDdUgbN6OPlvoN43ZeD3mvKA-3D-3D

// Tel:  +852-21570550

//Mobile: +852-62536678


//Skype: codesixs








On Fri, 18/08/2017 18.04, Fakrul Alam  wrote:
> 
Just to have a better understanding; what is the tenure of "Temporary 
Transfers"? In the policy it only says "A temporary transfer must have an end 
date". What about the end date as 2999?

> 

As other policies working more on Lowers the overall administrative burden on 
APNIC staff; I think this policy creates additional overhead on the APNIC staff.
> 

> 

Thanks

Fakrul




> 
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Ernest Tse  wrote:
> > 
​Hi all,

> 

Can I know what is the point of this 'Temporary transfers' proposal ?
> 
If someone needed a block for sending spamming, nowadays it also can do, no 
need temporary transfers policy.


> 


> 


Best Regards,




> 








Ernest Tse

Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.

// Web: 
https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=xF2otKml8FKK0iLyO1O8hgJEEKE0n4lX3qwSddKMZq8-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpUwFaW57feyIQxnl89nw3F28bIL7Xa-2F8s2cz6K-2BlXiN9X1yU1lNK-2Fu-2BG5vfSRsLRjbMOK1qKF2CwQAQrtNcMXVodRXyZvxWRYZCv62XiqLPsGMQT84MOXI5wk3q8sRlRcCeOT3R8-2BcKwl7L2QAlGBFY51TVyosGw-2BGTMhXnkTAG3g-3D-3D

// Tel:  +852-21570550

//Mobile: +852-62536678


//Skype: codesixs










> On Fri, 18/08/2017 14.38, Lu Heng  wrote:
> > 

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 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Fakrul Alam]

Just to have a better understanding; what is the tenure of "Temporary
Transfers"? In the policy it only says "A temporary transfer must have an
end date". What about the end date as 2999?

As other policies working more on Lowers the overall administrative burden
on APNIC staff; I think this policy creates additional overhead on the
APNIC staff.

Thanks
Fakrul

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Ernest Tse 
wrote:

> ​Hi all,
>
> Can I know what is the point of this 'Temporary transfers' proposal ?
> If someone needed a block for sending spamming, nowadays it also can do,
> no need temporary transfers policy.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Ernest Tse
> Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.
> // Web: http://www.pacswitch.com
> // Tel:  +852-21570550 <+852%202157%200550>
> //Mobile: +852-62536678 <+852%206253%206678>
> //Skype: codesixs
>
> On Fri, 18/08/2017 14.38, Lu Heng  wrote:
>
> 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

[Ernest Tse]

​Hi all,



Can I know what is the point of this 'Temporary transfers' proposal ?

If someone needed a block for sending spamming, nowadays it also can do, no 
need temporary transfers policy.








Best Regards,













Ernest Tse

Pacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.

// Web: 
https://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=xF2otKml8FKK0iLyO1O8hgJEEKE0n4lX3qwSddKMZq8-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXHzElk-2BY0rtp-2BT0OOWioU9UZvxq0PB-2BtMmXz8fSTsOusPwQlXhb71j15-2BCTmfknVdSSuJHpgWH-2BbVSKR-2BMf-2BvHos-2Bry4ej9cjz-2BaAty04XyA6jt0GLGRwggn3bY8Jru01hWww-2BIicFQ2naVTGGeRvRYhKsWS5Pe-2B5U5q-2F87F8Czz3Ju6VTreAYW-2FaIEY1FhVI-3D

// Tel:  +852-21570550

//Mobile: +852-62536678


//Skype: codesixs








On Fri, 18/08/2017 14.38, Lu Heng  wrote:
> 

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://u5763498.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=16bEysF9x2jUX1XY2ZMKUmipBN84-2BmQ2TjZWRnzKphdJ0-2BKxcniH6DgValcOC2GuxhPMQtuW0tiU5TPMpCEiaQ-3D-3D_UAkvnIPiyHBK93gJxXZbN-2FFqWUVGpvc0TKjBg0wTWpXHzElk-2BY0rtp-2BT0OOWioU9X2GNntjPpBlVwJXa4M1iMagXiz-2BgA-2F331u-2Bdg82LGFovruCZ23E4IXGzmyQGXD7W7GQFGg3zcBJ-2FwZMKBKIAHTXkS-2BR1xZ2-2B8JHyDTjawKGV5458iAGndZnpcgZQFd67IPBIURb4TwufDCHF6U6RA2dSFtGQvKBAz-2BS7Ojl1Ij4-3D






-- 



--
Kind regards.
Lu








*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy 
  *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Lu Heng]

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

[David Hilario]

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

[Satoru Tsurumaki]

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] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Aftab Siddiqui]

> 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

[Kuo-Wei Wu]

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
>> 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Sanjeev Gupta]

>  - 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 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Kuo-Wei Wu]

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
> >
> > *   

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Richard Ham]

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 <c...@twnic.net.tw>:
> > 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 transfe

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[David Hilario]

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.
>>
>>

Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

[Satoru Tsurumaki]

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