Hi Jordi,
Thanks for the reply.
I understand your point about original justification at ripe. But that has not
been the policy for a decade now, so I do think your information is inaccurate.
More to the point, Ripe will, in fact, consider leased out addresses as a
justified need whenever they do a needs test.
That cuts directly against the implication of your text.
What's more, Arin is perfectly fine with address holders leasing out their
addresses. And Arin can not revoke address space for being leased out or for
being unused.
What is the problem you are asking the Apnic community to solve with your
proposal?
Is it the insecurity of address holders relinquishing "immediate direct
control" by allowing another party to use the addresses?
That's all that I could get from the problem statement.
Regards,
Mike ---- On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:32:11 -0400 [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:div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387 p.MsoNormal,
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387 li.MsoNormal,
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387 div.MsoNormal { margin:
"Cambria Math" Calibri Consolas 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri", sans-serif }
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387 a:link,
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387
span.x_-1189344357MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline }
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387 pre { margin: 0in;
font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Courier New" }
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387
span.x_-1189344357gmailsignatureprefix { }
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387
span.x_-1189344357HTMLPreformattedChar { font-family: Consolas }
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387
span.x_-1189344357EmailStyle21 { font-family: "Calibri", sans-serif;
color: windowtext; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387
.x_-1189344357MsoChpDefault { font-size: 10pt }
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387 WordSection1 { size:
8.5in 11in; margin: 1in 1in 1in 1in }
div.zm_6758501352017711267_parse_-1937642368775720387
div.x_-1189344357WordSection1 { }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 PMTo:
[email protected]: [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,SunnyOn 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-148You 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 AnupamAPNIC 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 ResourcesIn 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]_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
