As with all of these questions, I'm keen to understand what policy
this is trying to solve, and whether the actual landscape has changed
since this discussion was had several years ago. A quick search of the
SIG mailing list shows that this has been discussed several times
since 2013.
But fundamentally, it strikes me that the policy is worded poorly, and
seeks to solve "too many problems" in one go.
The policy appears to be trying to address the following situations:
Scenario 1:
An organisation obtains, or has, IPv4 or IPv6 resources surplus to
their needs "right now", and given the shortage of IPv4 or IPv6
resources enters a commercial arrangement with another organisation in
need of these resources, in exchange for a fee. This is not a
transfer, but a temporary "lease". The general discussion on this list
is that such actions are considered outside the intent of APNIC
allocations.
Some notes:
- APNIC already states that this does not meet the justifiable need
for resource allocation in existing policies.
- APNIC already requires a direct connectivity relationship to
sub-allocate resources
- APNIC already states sub-allocation is only possible to "one level"
- APNIC already states that sub-allocation must be returned to the LIR
once the direct connectivity relationship is terminated
In the case of this scenario, it seems that the existing rules already
set out the guidelines and the processes for what resource holders can
do with their APNIC resources.
Scenario 2:
An organisation has grown rapidly and requires additional IPv4
resources to keep up with customer demand. As they are a "new" entrant
to the market and have received an allocation from the final /8, they
are limited in the new resource space they can apply for. In addition,
they already make use of CGNAT and other technologies and have
deployed IPv6 throughout their network; but simply need additional
IPv4 space. They approach the IPv4 market to purchase additional space
under a transfer agreement, but are unable to finance the quite high
transfer price for IPv4 address space. They would prefer to lease the
space to assist with financial management.
In the case of this scenario, the discussion seems to point that the
community would not like this avenue to be available for this type of
organisation.
Scenario 3:
An organisation already is making use of leased IPv4 space. They are
serving active customers using this. This space is leased from an
APNIC block from another provider.
Under this policy, this organisation would have their IPv4 space
removed from them, and be required to source IPv4 space for their
customers through other means, and whatever cost the market determines
is required. It is worth noting that this is an "open market" and
there is no regulation on transfer price or resource value.
---
In each of these cases, I'm interested in:
a) the extent to which this is a practice in the APNIC region
b) the extent to which this policy will solve a problem that actually
exists
c) whether this policy change would materially impact any
organisations, and if so how many
d) whether there is any information as to the extent that
organisations are utilising IPv4 space that has been assigned to an
entity to which there is no appropriate relationship
With the current text of the policy, I cannot support it; and I remain
agnostic as to the need for such a policy.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 15:37, Amrita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your valued inputs and interpretations.
>
>
>
> APNIC staff has confirmed that leasing is not allowed and by
proposing this policy change we want to explicitly state the same.
>
>
>
> As you can see that without this explicit statement community
members are free to interpret or misinterpret as it suits them.
>
>
>
> I would request all community members to look at this proposed
policy change from the lens of bringing in a more accountable and
transparent IP resource allocation process which can be easily
understood by all.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Amrita
>
>
>
> From: Fernando Frediani <[email protected]>
> Sent: 23 August 2022 17:22
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not
Acceptable
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
> The makes it very clear that what we are doing is just willing to
make something that *already exist* clear in the policy text, for the
avoidance of doubt of all members and fair usage of allocated
resources by APNIC to those who really justify the need.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 23/08/2022 07:35, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote:
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
> Please see our comments inline...
>
> On 23/08/2022 9:40 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In at least, LACNIC and AFRINIC, it has been made clear by staff,
that leasing is not a valid justification for getting resources, *THE
SAME as in APNIC*, so if you use that as a justification, the request
is denied. If you change the “usage” after the request is passed, then
you’re bypassing the original justification, which is also *disallowed*.
>
>
>
> I will let the secretariat to confirm if leasing is allowed or not,
actually responding to your points on APNIC policies, even if this
policy doesn't reach consensus. However, in my opinion the policy
manual must be clear enough so nobody can interpret that something is
not allowed when actually is not.
>
>
> The same topic was discussed on the apnic-transfers mailing list
sometime in June this year.
>
https://mailman.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/PDLAJK2JMT5RPILF4VZFH55PL4ROP5GG/
>
> I'm copying and pasting my colleague Vivek's response here.
>
> <quote>
> APNIC delegates IP addresses to Members based on their demonstrated
need. What Members can do with that address space once it is no longer
needed is impacted by policy requirements. I will provide two examples.
>
> Example 1: Addresses delegated from the last /8 pool cannot be
transferred for a minimum of five years. During that time, if the
reason for the original request is no longer valid, the resources must
be returned to APNIC.
> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#8.0.-IPv4-Transfers
> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#4.0.-Resource-License
>
> So in this instance, if a Member leases out their IP addresses
within five years of receiving the delegation from APNIC, they are
clearly not needed for their original declared purpose and must be
returned to APNIC.
>
> Example 2: For addresses delegated to a Member more than five years
ago, if a Member no longer has the need for the address space, APNIC
policy says the Member can choose to transfer it to another
organization or return it to APNIC. APNIC policy does not have
provisions for leasing. So in the second example, APNIC Members
leasing addresses would be doing so outside the policy framework and
will not receive APNIC services such as whois registration and
RPKI/ROA access related to those addresses. This in turn may make it
difficult to freely utilise those addresses on the Internet, due to
lack of clear authorisation and a reliance on the registered holder
(lessor) to assist. Of course, if the addresses being leased were not
delegated by APNIC, then the relevant RIR’s policies apply to those
addresses.
> <unquote>
>
> Regards,
> Sunny
> APNIC Secretariat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 22/8/22, 12:17, "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> escribió:
>
>
>
> There are a number of problems with this policy.
>
>
>
> First let’s start with Jordi stating the policy is just a
clarification of fact.
>
> If so, why is it necessary? Actually it is not a fact as leasing is
occurring in APNIC and there is nothing in policy preventing it. So
this needs to be considered as a change in policy.
>
>
>
> Second, there are inaccuracies in the verbiage associated with the
policy, particularly in reference to the status of leasing at other
RIRs. How can you make the statement “ In other RIRs, the leasing of
addresses is not authorized either and since it is not explicit in
their policy manuals…”?
>
>
>
> Are you unilaterally deciding that things which are not mentioned in
policy are by definition “unauthorized”? I think this is wrong, and
it’s better to consider things as authorized unless they are forbidden
by policy. However, either way there is no language in any RIR
regarding leasing and you can’t make assumptions based on your own
feelings.
>
>
>
> You are also wrong in stating that “Nothing is currently mentioned
in RIPE about this and it is not acceptable as a justification of the
need.” In actual fact, RIPE will accept leased-out addresses as
justification of need in the only case where RIPE actually has a needs
test, and that is with inter-regional transfers sourced in ARIN. It
bears remembering that RIPE simply has no needs test for transfers and
this has been the policy for many years. You may wonder what the
point of a needs-test for transfers is, since the recipients are
paying for the addresses.
>
>
>
> ARIN staff has made it known that leasing addresses is not against
policy at all, but leased-out addresses can’t be used to justify
transfers. However a policy explicitly allowing leased-out addresses
to be used as justification is under consideration.
>
>
>
> Also leases can be used to justify addresses in ARIN if any tiny
connectivity is created between the lessor and lessee. For example, a
small VPN can be created, even though it carries no (or nearly no)
traffic. If you want to get technical, the lessor and the lessee both
advertise the block, but the lessor advertises a longer and more
expensive route than the lessee, who will receive all the traffic
except for any loose packets that find their way to the lessor, who
will send them down the tunnel to the lessee.
>
>
>
> The issue of retention of a needs test should be reconsidered by the
APNIC community in the face of evidence garnered from the RIPE
experiment. RIPE has had no needs test and APNIC had also removed the
needs-test for transfers but only restored it at the behest of ARIN,
who at the time was the only source for desperate APNIC members faced
with APNIC exhaust. Now there are other sources for inter-regional
transfers to APNIC, and APNIC can take the path of RIPE in performing
needs test only for inbound ARIN transfers so that source would not be
precluded. So why not return to APNIC’s previous position of removing
the needs test from transfers?
>
>
>
> Leasing is a natural progression of the IPv4 market that provides
benefits to both lessee and lessor, and that is why it is inevitable
and why it exists today. There are those who hold unused addresses
but who don’t want to sell for some reason. There are those who need
IPv4 but who can’t afford to pay for it all at once. There are those
with a temporary need. Leasing is the answer for the smaller
organizations that need IPv4. There are no addresses left in the free
pool, so it’s either buy or lease. No other options.
>
>
>
> Today APNIC (and ARIN and RIPE) will allow existing address holders
to lease their blocks to non-connected customers. This is not a policy
violation and addresses can’t be revoked for reasons of utilization or
non-utilization. I believe that contra this policy, leasing should be
authorized explicitly and that leased out addresses in-use on an
operational network should logically be accepted as justification,
because does it really matter whose network they are used on? Isn’t
the salient point that they are in use?
>
>
>
> I am against this policy.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:21 AM
> To: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not
Acceptable
>
>
>
> Hi Sunny, all,
>
>
>
> In my opinion because the policy is just a clarification of a fact,
it doesn’t change the situation for non-LIR/ISP account holders.
Further to that, direct assignments from APNIC can’t be further
sub-assigned, so clearly this disallows any type of “business” with
addresses for those account holders. Do you think that’s sufficiently
clear or do you think a small text clarification in the proposal is
needed?
>
>
>
> Regarding your 2nd point, there is not already a generic contact
email to let know APNIC if anything is wrong regarding policy
compliance? It will be surprising that today anyone discovers some
breach and can’t report it, so this will also apply the same to this
proposal. Again, if you believe a text clarification is needed, we can
make a new version for that.
>
>
>
> Finally, regarding your 3rd question, in my understanding the policy
manual apply to *all the resources* unless we state otherwise. So not
only those after being implemented are subjected to this proposal. And
once more, the proposal is only a clarification, not changing what is
the current reality. Anyway, we are happy to state it more clearly if
needed.
>
>
>
> Tks!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
> El 22/8/22, 2:45, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <[email protected]> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-148-v001, which
is also
> available on the proposal page.
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
>
> APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the APNIC
> Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of IP
addresses is
> not permitted in the APNIC region.
>
> Clarifications:
>
> Is this proposal restricted to LIRs/ISPs, or does it apply to all APNIC
> account holders?
>
> The proposal does not specify how an APNIC investigation should be
initiated.
> Should there be a form to report this, similar to IRT escalation?
>
> Does this proposal apply to all existing allocations or only those
delegated
> after the policy is implemented?
>
> Implementation:
>
> This proposal may require changes to the system.
>
> If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation may be completed
within
> 3 months.
>
> Regards,
> Sunny
> APNIC Secretariat
>
> On 11/08/2022 5:01 pm, chku wrote:
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
>
>
> The proposal "prop-148: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has
been
>
> sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
>
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
>
> Thursday, 15 September 2022.
>
>
>
> https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
>
>
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
>
> before the OPM.
>
>
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important
>
> part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to
>
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>
> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
>
> tell the community about your situation.
>
> - 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?
>
>
>
> Information about this proposal is appended below as well as
available at:
>
>
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
>
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez ([email protected])
>
> Amrita Choudhury ([email protected])
>
> Fernando Frediani ([email protected])
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
>
> --------------------
>
> RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses
are not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
>
>
>
> When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for
whatever reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses
to the RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis
of the delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific
purpose that no longer exists, or based on information that is later
found to be false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not
enforced to renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these
resources using the appropriate transfer policy.
>
>
>
> If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses
security problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource
holder who has received the license to use the addresses does not have
immediate physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause
damage to the entire community.
>
>
>
> Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the
Internet Resources should not be leased "per se", but only as part of
a direct connectivity service.
>
>
>
> The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for
those blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect
customers of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual
license for the use of the addresses would not be valid either.
Sections 3.2.6. (Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and
3.2.8. (Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on
this issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the
entire Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
>
> -----------------------------
>
> In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal
will be presented as well.
>
>
>
> Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not
acceptable as a justification of the need. In AFRINIC and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid
for the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as
justification of need.
>
>
>
> A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
>
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
>
> ---------------------------
>
> 5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
>
>
>
> In the case of Internet number resources, the justification of the
need implies the need to directly connect customers. As a result, any
form of IP address leasing is not considered acceptable, nor does it
justify the need, if it is not part of a set of services based, at the
very least, on direct connectivity. Even for networks that are not
connected to the Internet, leasing of IP addresses is not permitted,
because such sites can request direct assignments from APNIC or the
relevant NIR and, in the case of IPv4, use private addresses or
arrange market transfers.
>
>
>
> If any form of leasing is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, APNIC
may revoke the IP resources of account holders who are leasing or
using them for any purposes not specified in the initial request.
>
>
>
> This includes, but not limited to, the following:
>
> - Removing delegations from the Whois database.
>
> - Removing related ROAs.
>
> - Stop providing APNIC services.
>
>
>
> Members of the NIR are subject to the same policy.
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Advantages:
>
> Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
>
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> None.
>
>
>
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
>
> -----------------------------
>
> None.
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. References
>
> -------------
>
>
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arin.net%2Fparticipate%2Fpolicy%2Fproposals%2F2022%2FARIN_prop_308_v2%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C10362f529b0e4536949408da7b677a41%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637957981611076664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uhhDD0kaOyJOxHiWa7Z%2BckfPwe9ohLQsidzS9u4BUHo%3D&reserved=0
<https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arin.net%2Fparticipate%2Fpolicy%2Fproposals%2F2022%2FARIN_prop_308_v2%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C10362f529b0e4536949408da7b677a41%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637957981611076664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uhhDD0kaOyJOxHiWa7Z%2BckfPwe9ohLQsidzS9u4BUHo%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticas.lacnic.net%2Fpoliticas%2Fdetail%2Fid%2FLAC-2022-2%2Flanguage%2Fen&data=05%7C01%7C%7C10362f529b0e4536949408da7b677a41%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637957981611076664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p7nZJRM2zzi2kBOyLeSA%2BOo1qGTU1rBB3VIvQoaLYz0%3D&reserved=0
<https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticas.lacnic.net%2Fpoliticas%2Fdetail%2Fid%2FLAC-2022-2%2Flanguage%2Fen&data=05%7C01%7C%7C10362f529b0e4536949408da7b677a41%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637957981611076664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p7nZJRM2zzi2kBOyLeSA%2BOo1qGTU1rBB3VIvQoaLYz0%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
>
> Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
>
>
>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
>
> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
>
> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s)
>
> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized
>
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are
not the
>
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all
>
> copies of the original message.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ sig-policy -
https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe
send an email to [email protected]
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
this information, even if partially, including attached files, is
strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
this information, even if partially, including attached files, is
strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
>
> Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
>
>
>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
>
> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
>
> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s)
>
> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized
>
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are
not the
>
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all
>
> copies of the original message.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
