Hi all,
The arguments are circular and do not resolving anything. The continued debate about “law” (it’s not – it’s policy), original justification (mine is about the same age as a Cisco 1600 router and simply is not useful or relevant in 2022) and square peg in a round hole ways of determining if leasing is happening and then punishing the evil perpetrator is ample proof that this policy is not reaching consensus. Regards, Richard From: Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2022 9:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable Hello Aftab Let me address this concern so perhaps it gets better clarified. If an organization who is for example a CDN provider and asks APNIC for an ASN number and IP addresses and have justified will use them to provide hosting and CDN services to their customers through the infrastructure they own or contract from a provider, then there is nothing wrong if eventually that CDN provider asks for their upstream provider who provide them connectivity and colocation services, to announce their prefixes with the upstream ASN and not their own. In this scenario there is no problem that the CDN provider ASN will not appear in the as-path because at the end the resources remaing being used for what they were originally justified and for the own resource holder to use them to provide internet services to their customers. I personally think that not appearing the resource holder ASN in the as-path could be a signal of that resources are being rented but this alone cannot be something forbidden. The important things is that resources get used by the resource holder for what they were justified and according to the current policy. Best regards Fernando On 08/09/2022 08:20, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: skipping the other bits.. If there is not a direct link from an LIR to a customer, then is not a direct connectivity. So, in that case is not tied to a connectivity service. I have a simple question, is this an example of leasing or not? 103.93.157.0/25 <http://103.93.157.0/25> allocated to an entity with 2 ASNs (AS149847 and AS136594) but it is announced by AS32787. The original entite ASNs are not in the path at all. 103.93.157.0/24* <http://103.93.157.0/24*> and 103.114.130.0/24* <http://103.114.130.0/24*> apnic|AU|ipv4|103.93.156.0|512|20170523|allocated|A91A0031 apnic|AU|ipv4|103.114.130.0|512|20180427|assigned|A91A0031 apnic|AU|asn|149847|1|20220526|allocated|A91A0031 apnic|AU|asn|136594|1|20170523|allocated|A91A0031 N*> 103.93.157.0/24 <http://103.93.157.0/24> 169.254.169.254 50 0 64515 65534 20473 32787 i N*> 103.114.130.0/24 <http://103.114.130.0/24> 169.254.169.254 50 0 64515 65534 20473 32787 i Answer to this question is important because you are mixing business and operational practices. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
