Hi Fernando,
Do you understand my argument that smaller business cannot afford the
full upfront payment but can afford monthly lease payments?
Please address that simple argument by telling me how the small
business benefits by not having the lease option, but only having the
purchase option.
Regards,
Mike
*From:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 1:01 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification -
Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
IP Leasing is already banned in most RIRs and should stay as is.
But yes it does help as it doesn't push even further up IPv4 pricing
and makes it easier for these small companies to get IPv4 via the
proper and allowed way which are transfers. Other then diverting
totally the propose o IPv4 Allocation, Leasing market contributes
significantly to price increasing fueling the market with more demand
for that type of very wrong thing.
RIPE is normally not a good example for certain policies which don't
seem to have receptivity in discussions on all other RIRs.
There are still mechanisms that allow companies to get IP addressing
either directly from the RIR, via Transfers which is a pretty common
way or from the Upstream providers. People may not have got used yet
to learn to live with less address and they may believe they need a
bunch of address.
IP Leasing will never help small companies. The ones who really
benefit from it are the IP broker companies who profit from them and
also the resource holders which don't justify anymore to keep those
addresses and are also profiting from something that should have been
re-assigned directly to those who really need and justify for them in
order to build Internet Infrastructure and Connectivity and instead
are leasing a asset they don't own.
Fernando
On 07/09/2022 12:39, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
So your argument is that banning leasing actually helps smaller
companies in their quest for IPv4?
Are you aware that RIPE has allowed leasing for many years but is
still a functioning RIR whose IPv4 sale prices are not more
expensive despite the history of leasing there?
Can you reconcile that with your argument that leasing will raise
prices for both leasing and transfers?
Are you aware that it’s not always possible to get IPv4 blocks
from the company that is providing you with connectivity?
Regards,
Mike
*From:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 11:27 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification
- Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
This is exactly the opposite.
Allowing IP leasing to happen more than just tottaly divert the
propose of IP assignments by RIRs it make it bad specially for
smaller companies as it increases the cost for both leasing and
transfers in long term. The cost of leasing is based on the
transfer and if leasing is allowed then transfer prices will
always go up which makes it even harder for smaller companies to
go into the market.
Any form of IP leasing without a direct connection relationship to
provide a connectivity service makes it more expensive for smaller
companies to get IP addresses to operate.
Fernando
On 07/09/2022 11:15, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Jordi,
It’s plain you feel that we should do all possible to raise
the price of IPv4 and make it unattainable for small business
in the vain hope that this will drive IPv6 adoption.
I don’t think making IPv4 more difficult to acquire is the job
of the RIR system.
You have not addressed the inability of smaller companies to
acquire necessary IPv4 blocks if you ban leasing.
Is that something you are comfortable with, in pursuit of the
IPv6 grail?
It’s okay with you that this policy prevents small companies
from growing?
Regards,
Mike
*From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 10:11 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148:
Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
Actually, I must disagree …
If organizations having unused resources, they need to
transfer them or return them to the RIR. If prices keep going
high, that could encourage faster IPv6 adoption, then transfer
prices will go down, up to “no value”. It takes time, but it
is just market.
Those that have more money, have more facilities to do a
faster transition and not bother about IPv4.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 16:05, "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> escribió:
Hello,
Per Gaurav’s statement that “only those with millions of
dollars can think of getting ips”, this community should
oppose this policy.
Because the only way small companies can afford to get ips
today is by leasing them. The same way the small company
can’t afford to purchase a big office building but instead
rents an office. Leasing is the only way to finance IPv4
acquisitions today. No bank or other entity that I am aware of
will do it. Purchasing addresses requires full upfront
payment, but leasing allow for much smaller monthly payments.
If this community wants to ensure only the largest and richest
companies can acquire new addresses, ban leasing.
But if the community tries to ban something with such a large
business motivation behind it, it will find itself struggling
against a powerful foe.
And for what purpose do we punish the small businesses?
Leasing puts addresses in the hands of those who need them to
build and operate networks. Isn’t that the primary goal of the
RIR system?
Regards,
Mike
El 2/9/22, 9:23, "Gaurav Kansal" <[email protected]> escribió:
Hello everyone,
In my opinion, even Trading of IPs (leave apart the lease for
making dollars) in the name of transfers must be stopped.
If organisation doesn’t need IPs , then those must be returned
back so that smaller organisations can get it from the RIR.
Currently, only the one which have millions of dollars can
think of getting IPs. In today’s scenario, no one can start
the Data Centre, ISP business without investing millions in
IPs. Even education and research org doesn’t have an option to
get IPs from RIR.
This is like horse trading and isn’t a good practice for the
community as a whole.
Regards,
Gaurav Kansal
On 02-Sep-2022, at 12:20, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Team,
As Mr. Satoru, mentioned there are changes, but if
carefully implemented in phased manner, unauthorised
leasing can be stopped.
For example in first phase, leasing among countries can be
stopped, if the owner company doesn't provide any services
beyond its home country. For example if a company in India
doesn't have any operation in Singapore or Japan , can't
lease resources to those companies in Singapore or Japan.
This can be verified by taking business registration
documents of both lease and lessor.
Once this is done same may be granularized at RIR level,
where in country like India, leasing can be restricted to
the licensed service area for service provider within
their designated service area.
This may stop majority of issues, barring few exceptions.
Some more brainstorming is required for
better understanding and precise implementation.
Regards,
Rajesh Panwala
For Smartlink Solutions Pvt Ltd
+91-9227886001
+91-9426110781
On Fri, Sep 2, 2022, 10:44 AM Tsurumaki, Satoru
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum
Steering Team..
I would like to share key feedback in our community
for prop-148,
based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss
these proposals.
Many participants support the intent of the proposal
but felt that
implementation would be challenging.
(comment details)
- It is undisputed that the current policy allows for
the distribution
of IP addresses according to the actual demand of
one's own
organization or directly connected customers, and
does not allow for
the leasing of IP addresses.
- I think this proposal would be useful if the concept
of leasing is
accurately defined.
- Leasing IP addresses that damage the accuracy of
whois information
should not be allowed, but I find it difficult to
implement.
Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
2022年8月26日(金) 17:27 Shaila Sharmin
<[email protected]>:
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
> A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v002:
Clarification - Leasing of
> Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the
Policy SIG for review.
>
> Information about earlier versions is available from:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
>
> You are encouraged to express your views on the
proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose the 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.
>
> Regards,
> Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> prop-148-v002: Clarification - 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 a 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 delegated
by APNIC or an NIR,
> the justification of the need implies the need to
use on their own
> infrastructure and/or network connectivity services
provided directly to
> customers. As a result, any form of IP address
leasing is unacceptable,
> 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.
>
> APNIC may proactively investigate those cases and
also initiate the
> investigation in case of reports by means of a form,
email address or
> other means developed by APNIC.
>
> If any form of leasing, regardless of when the
delegation has been
> issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it
will be considered a
> policy violation and revocation may apply against
any account holders
> who are leasing or using them for any purposes not
specified in the
> initial request.
>
>
> 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://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
>
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy -
https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
> To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
--
--
Satoru Tsurumaki
BBIX, Inc
_______________________________________________
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]
<https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/>
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________
sig-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
