Hi Jordi: That must be a long time ago.
RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason. Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale. On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the > question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP > resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not > talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need. > > Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks! > > Regards, > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > El 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <[email protected]> escribió: > > Hello, > > The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out > before in other fora to the authors. > Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false. > RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in > this case leasing them out is a justified use. > If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly. > > Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the > problem we are trying to solve? > The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security > problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the > registrant’s “immediate physical control.” > Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to > something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the > registrant has immediate physical control of.”? > Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it > safer for the community? > > Regards, > Mike Burns > > > > *From:* Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing > of Resources is not Acceptable > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the > APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of > addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region. > > Questions/Comments: > ------------------- > - Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered > 'leasing'? > > - How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are > being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking? > > - Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those > addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches > consensus)? > > - How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously > received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities > (for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)? > > Implementation: > --------------- > This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal > reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months. > > Regards, > Sunny > > On 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote: > > Dear SIG members, > > A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: 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 Anupam > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-148-v004: 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 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 > connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need > justification. > > 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 a NIR, > the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own > infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to > customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable, > nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original > request. 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 should 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 > -- > Regards, > Shaila Sharmin > +8801811447396 > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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] > > > > ********************************************** > 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 to [email protected] -- -- Kind regards. Lu
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
