First of all, RIRs don’t convey usage rights. They convey unique registrations.
Now the vast majority of (virtually all) ISPs (fortunately) choose to cooperate
with the existing registry system,
so that the unique registrations in that registry system are roughly equivalent
to a right to use, but every RIR
makes it very clear that the registration is _NOT_ a right to route or a
guarantee that anyone outside of the
RIR system will honor your use of addresses on their routers in any way, shape,
or form.
Nor does the registration of a prefix in the RIR system convey any exclusive
right to announce that prefix or
prevent anyone else from doing so. It is the cooperation of ISPs and others who
actually run routers that provides
that capability to prefix registrants in the RIR system. They are each
individually free to honor or not any
particular registration in that system as they see fit. There is nothing
binding upon them to do otherwise.
So you are both sort of correct and both equally wrong.
IP addresses are integers. Claiming ownership of 5 makes about as much sense as
claiming ownership of
a bank account number or a credit card number or virtually any other number.
You can’t own an integer
because one of the definitions of ownership is the right to exclude others from
using that thing.
However, you can own and you can resell the registration of a particular number
(or set of numbers)
within the RIR system. We routinely get lazy in language and refer to this as
selling (or transferring)
the numbers themselves, but in reality, what we are transferring is the
registration of those numbers as
uniquely assigned to us within a particular registry (namely the RIR) system.
It’s also true that the registries themselves don’t want to get involved in the
business side of those transfers.
If party A and party B appropriately approach the registry and the transfer of
the addresses is done in
conformance to their policies, they will happily transfer the resources from A
to B regardless of how much
money was exchanged between B and A or in which direction.
While I think Mr. Lu’s choice to compare it to prostitution was in poor taste,
I doubt that it violated the CoC
and like it or not, the comparison he was drawing isn’t so far from the truth.
While some RIR policies
prohibit certain forms of “reselling addresses”, the reality is that remains a
very gray area of those
policies. To make matters worse, legitimate paid transfers and address resale
really are much harder
to distinguish than one would first imagine. Especially if you’re attempting to
make that distinction in
policy language.
Just as it can be hard (impossible) to distinguish money exchanged for time
spent together vs.
money exchanged for performance of specific “tasks” during that time. The
latter is illegal in
many jurisdictions while the former is not, but proving that the purpose of the
exchange was
the latter and not the former can be complicated at best.
YMMV
The bottom line is that this is still a policy proposal which should not be
adopted for the following
reasons:
1. It fails to define leasing in a manner which would not allow
interpretations which are hostile
to common current practice that the authors have stated it is not their
intent to prohibit.
2. It fails to achieve solve the problem outlined in the problem statement.
3. If interpreted literally, it would have very negative ramifications to
most existing service
providers and their customers.
4. It’s a deep dive into the minutiae of a tiny fraction of IPv4
utilization all because it offends
someone’s moral sensibilities without regard for any practical or
useful policy concern.
5. IPv4 should have died years ago and this form of rearranging the deck
chairs simply doesn’t
help the community to move forward. Put the energy that has gone into
advocating this
proposal into getting key content providers that are still IPv4-only
moving forward and we
can stop worrying about the scarcity of IPv4.
Owen
> On Sep 2, 2023, at 02:54, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess
> against code of conduct.
>
> I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You
> have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it
> (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to
> another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses,
> is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words,
> from a legal perspective.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>> El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <[email protected]> escribió:
>>
>> Hi Jordi:
>>
>> Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?
>>
>> Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of
>> course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.
>>
>> Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling
>>> addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>>
>>> @jordipalet
>>>
>>>
>>>> El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>> 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] <mailto:[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]
>>>>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
>>>>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[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]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>)
>>>>>>> Amrita Choudhury ([email protected]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>)
>>>>>>> Fernando Frediani ([email protected]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[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]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>_______________________________________________
>>>>>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> **********************************************
>>>>> IPv4 is over
>>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <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]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Kind regards.
>>>> Lu
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> IPv4 is over
>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <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]
>>> <mailto:[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]
