> 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.
This simply isn’t the fact.
In ARIN, Leasing is not permitted as justification for obtaining addresses and
addresses leased
without associated connectivity are not considered utilized for the purpose of
obtaining additional
addresses. However, that does not mean that leasing is not authorized. Leasing
is neither authorized,
nor prohibited by ARIN policy at this time.
> Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and originally it was
> not acceptable as a justification of the need.
Having done away with Need as a justification, however, there is no longer a
prohibition of leasing
in any form in the RIPE region. That which is not prohibited is permitted.
> 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.
Not considered as valid for justification is different from prohibited. Once
one has acquired addresses
from an RIR, one is free to utilize them for any purpose not explicitly
prohibited by policy, RSA, or
the bylaws of the RIR.
> A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
Similar proposals have repeatedly failed in ARIN before and the current one
does not, IMHO, have
much support.
> 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, any
> form of 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 transfers.
The first sentence remains incongruous with the remainder of the paragraph and
I remain opposed
to this proposal on that basis.
Other than the first sentence, the rest of the paragraph still purports to
prohibit all forms of leasing
which would include:
Providers providing dynamic addresses to customers via DHCP
Providers providing addresses to customers for a fee for a certain time
period
> APNIC should proactively investigate lack of compliance with the
> original resource request justification, including suspected cases for
> any form of leasing and also initiate the investigation in case of
> reports by means of a form, email address or other means developed by APNIC.
The RIRs were never intended to be the internet police and expanding their role
in this manner
runs contrary to their core mission (the maintenance of an accurate registry of
unique delegations).
> 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.
This is the most objectionable part of this policy. It basically says that if a
provider has a /24 that was
previously issued to XYZ Company and XYZ Company changes providers, but wishes
to pay to retain
the addresses for use with their other providers, this transaction cannot be
permitted. This is a common
transaction and prohibiting it would be very disruptive. Especially if that /24
is a single /24 in a /20 or
even larger block nd the entire block is revoked as a result.
Further, things change rapidly on the internet. It is not at all unusual for
providers to have to pivot
to new business opportunities. This stretches far beyond leasing and seeks to
cause revocations for
any shift in the business environment (or at the very least a requirement for
RIR approval of any
new business model).
That’s egregious, IMHO.
Owen
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> -----------------------------
> Advantages:
> Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
>
> Disadvantages:
> None. APNIC can already do this today, however, existing policies don’t
> explicit them clearly.
>
>
> 6. Impact on resource holders
> -----------------------------
> None, unless they violate policies, but this proposal don’t change that,
> only clarify it.
>
>
> 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]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
