As with all of these questions, I'm keen to
understand what policy this is trying to solve, and whether the
actual landscape has changed since this discussion was had
several years ago. A quick search of the SIG mailing list shows
that this has been discussed several times since 2013.
But fundamentally, it strikes me that the policy is worded
poorly, and seeks to solve "too many problems" in one go.
An organisation obtains, or has, IPv4 or IPv6 resources
surplus to their needs "right now", and given the shortage of
IPv4 or IPv6 resources enters a commercial arrangement with
another organisation in need of these resources, in exchange
for a fee. This is not a transfer, but a temporary "lease".
The general discussion on this list is that such actions are
considered outside the intent of APNIC allocations.
- APNIC already states that this does not meet the
justifiable need for resource allocation in existing policies.
- APNIC already requires a direct connectivity relationship
to sub-allocate resources
- APNIC already states that sub-allocation must be returned
to the LIR once the direct connectivity relationship is
terminated
In the case of this scenario, it seems that the existing
rules already set out the guidelines and the processes for
what resource holders can do with their APNIC resources.
An organisation has grown rapidly and requires additional
IPv4 resources to keep up with customer demand. As they are a
"new" entrant to the market and have received an allocation
from the final /8, they are limited in the new resource space
they can apply for. In addition, they already make use of
CGNAT and other technologies and have deployed IPv6 throughout
their network; but simply need additional IPv4 space. They
approach the IPv4 market to purchase additional space under a
transfer agreement, but are unable to finance the quite high
transfer price for IPv4 address space. They would prefer to
lease the space to assist with financial management.
In the case of this scenario, the discussion seems to point
that the community would not like this avenue to be available
for this type of organisation.
An organisation already is making use of leased IPv4 space.
They are serving active customers using this. This space is
leased from an APNIC block from another provider.
Under this policy, this organisation would have their IPv4
space removed from them, and be required to source IPv4 space
for their customers through other means, and whatever cost the
market determines is required. It is worth noting that this is
an "open market" and there is no regulation on transfer price
or resource value.
b) the extent to which this policy will solve a problem
that actually exists
c) whether this policy change would materially impact any
organisations, and if so how many
d) whether there is any information as to the extent that
organisations are utilising IPv4 space that has been assigned
to an entity to which there is no appropriate relationship
With the current text of the policy, I cannot support it;
and I remain agnostic as to the need for such a policy.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 15:37, Amrita <
amritachoudhury8@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your valued inputs and interpretations.
>
>
>
> APNIC staff has confirmed that leasing is not allowed and
by proposing this policy change we want to explicitly state
the same.
>
>
>
> As you can see that without this explicit statement
community members are free to interpret or misinterpret as it
suits them.
>
>
>
> I would request all community members to look at this
proposed policy change from the lens of bringing in a more
accountable and transparent IP resource allocation process
which can be easily understood by all.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Amrita
>
>
>
> From: Fernando Frediani <
fhfrediani@gmail.com>
> Sent: 23 August 2022 17:22
> To:
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
> The makes it very clear that what we are doing is just
willing to make something that *already exist* clear in the
policy text, for the avoidance of doubt of all members and
fair usage of allocated resources by APNIC to those who really
justify the need.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 23/08/2022 07:35, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote:
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
> Please see our comments inline...
>
> On 23/08/2022 9:40 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In at least, LACNIC and AFRINIC, it has been made clear
by staff, that leasing is not a valid justification for
getting resources, *THE SAME as in APNIC*, so if you use that
as a justification, the request is denied. If you change the
“usage” after the request is passed, then you’re bypassing the
original justification, which is also *disallowed*.
>
>
>
> I will let the secretariat to confirm if leasing is
allowed or not, actually responding to your points on APNIC
policies, even if this policy doesn't reach consensus.
However, in my opinion the policy manual must be clear enough
so nobody can interpret that something is not allowed when
actually is not.
>
>
> The same topic was discussed on the apnic-transfers
mailing list sometime in June this year.
>
https://mailman.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/apnic-transfers@apnic.net/thread/PDLAJK2JMT5RPILF4VZFH55PL4ROP5GG/
>
> I'm copying and pasting my colleague Vivek's response
here.
>
> <quote>
> APNIC delegates IP addresses to Members based on their
demonstrated need. What Members can do with that address space
once it is no longer needed is impacted by policy
requirements. I will provide two examples.
>
> Example 1: Addresses delegated from the last /8 pool
cannot be transferred for a minimum of five years. During that
time, if the reason for the original request is no longer
valid, the resources must be returned to APNIC.
>
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#8.0.-IPv4-Transfers
>
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#4.0.-Resource-License
>
> So in this instance, if a Member leases out their IP
addresses within five years of receiving the delegation from
APNIC, they are clearly not needed for their original declared
purpose and must be returned to APNIC.
>
> Example 2: For addresses delegated to a Member more than
five years ago, if a Member no longer has the need for the
address space, APNIC policy says the Member can choose to
transfer it to another organization or return it to APNIC.
APNIC policy does not have provisions for leasing. So in the
second example, APNIC Members leasing addresses would be doing
so outside the policy framework and will not receive APNIC
services such as whois registration and RPKI/ROA access
related to those addresses. This in turn may make it difficult
to freely utilise those addresses on the Internet, due to lack
of clear authorisation and a reliance on the registered holder
(lessor) to assist. Of course, if the addresses being leased
were not delegated by APNIC, then the relevant RIR’s policies
apply to those addresses.
> <unquote>
>
> Regards,
> Sunny
> APNIC Secretariat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 22/8/22, 12:17, "Mike Burns" <
mike@iptrading.com>
escribió:
>
>
>
> There are a number of problems with this policy.
>
>
>
> First let’s start with Jordi stating the policy is just a
clarification of fact.
>
> If so, why is it necessary? Actually it is not a fact as
leasing is occurring in APNIC and there is nothing in policy
preventing it. So this needs to be considered as a change in
policy.
>
>
>
> Second, there are inaccuracies in the verbiage associated
with the policy, particularly in reference to the status of
leasing at other RIRs. How can you make the statement “ In
other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either
and since it is not explicit in their policy manuals…”?
>
>
>
> Are you unilaterally deciding that things which are not
mentioned in policy are by definition “unauthorized”? I think
this is wrong, and it’s better to consider things as
authorized unless they are forbidden by policy. However,
either way there is no language in any RIR regarding leasing
and you can’t make assumptions based on your own feelings.
>
>
>
> You are also wrong in stating that “Nothing is currently
mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not acceptable as a
justification of the need.” In actual fact, RIPE will accept
leased-out addresses as justification of need in the only case
where RIPE actually has a needs test, and that is with
inter-regional transfers sourced in ARIN. It bears
remembering that RIPE simply has no needs test for transfers
and this has been the policy for many years. You may wonder
what the point of a needs-test for transfers is, since the
recipients are paying for the addresses.
>
>
>
> ARIN staff has made it known that leasing addresses is
not against policy at all, but leased-out addresses can’t be
used to justify transfers. However a policy explicitly
allowing leased-out addresses to be used as justification is
under consideration.
>
>
>
> Also leases can be used to justify addresses in ARIN if
any tiny connectivity is created between the lessor and
lessee. For example, a small VPN can be created, even though
it carries no (or nearly no) traffic. If you want to get
technical, the lessor and the lessee both advertise the block,
but the lessor advertises a longer and more expensive route
than the lessee, who will receive all the traffic except for
any loose packets that find their way to the lessor, who will
send them down the tunnel to the lessee.
>
>
>
> The issue of retention of a needs test should be
reconsidered by the APNIC community in the face of evidence
garnered from the RIPE experiment. RIPE has had no needs test
and APNIC had also removed the needs-test for transfers but
only restored it at the behest of ARIN, who at the time was
the only source for desperate APNIC members faced with APNIC
exhaust. Now there are other sources for inter-regional
transfers to APNIC, and APNIC can take the path of RIPE in
performing needs test only for inbound ARIN transfers so that
source would not be precluded. So why not return to APNIC’s
previous position of removing the needs test from transfers?
>
>
>
> Leasing is a natural progression of the IPv4 market that
provides benefits to both lessee and lessor, and that is why
it is inevitable and why it exists today. There are those who
hold unused addresses but who don’t want to sell for some
reason. There are those who need IPv4 but who can’t afford to
pay for it all at once. There are those with a temporary need.
Leasing is the answer for the smaller organizations that need
IPv4. There are no addresses left in the free pool, so it’s
either buy or lease. No other options.
>
>
>
> Today APNIC (and ARIN and RIPE) will allow existing
address holders to lease their blocks to non-connected
customers. This is not a policy violation and addresses can’t
be revoked for reasons of utilization or non-utilization. I
believe that contra this policy, leasing should be authorized
explicitly and that leased out addresses in-use on an
operational network should logically be accepted as
justification, because does it really matter whose network
they are used on? Isn’t the salient point that they are in
use?
>
>
>
> I am against this policy.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:21 AM
> To: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <
sunny@apnic.net>;
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of
Resources is not Acceptable
>
>
>
> Hi Sunny, all,
>
>
>
> In my opinion because the policy is just a clarification
of a fact, it doesn’t change the situation for non-LIR/ISP
account holders. Further to that, direct assignments from
APNIC can’t be further sub-assigned, so clearly this disallows
any type of “business” with addresses for those account
holders. Do you think that’s sufficiently clear or do you
think a small text clarification in the proposal is needed?
>
>
>
> Regarding your 2nd point, there is not already a generic
contact email to let know APNIC if anything is wrong regarding
policy compliance? It will be surprising that today anyone
discovers some breach and can’t report it, so this will also
apply the same to this proposal. Again, if you believe a text
clarification is needed, we can make a new version for that.
>
>
>
> Finally, regarding your 3rd question, in my understanding
the policy manual apply to *all the resources* unless we state
otherwise. So not only those after being implemented are
subjected to this proposal. And once more, the proposal is
only a clarification, not changing what is the current
reality. Anyway, we are happy to state it more clearly if
needed.
>
>
>
> Tks!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
> El 22/8/22, 2:45, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <
sunny@apnic.net>
escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is the secretariat's impact assessment for
prop-148-v001, which is also
> available on the proposal page.
>
>
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
>
> APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly
stating in the APNIC
> Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
IP addresses is
> not permitted in the APNIC region.
>
> Clarifications:
>
> Is this proposal restricted to LIRs/ISPs, or does it
apply to all APNIC
> account holders?
>
> The proposal does not specify how an APNIC investigation
should be initiated.
> Should there be a form to report this, similar to IRT
escalation?
>
> Does this proposal apply to all existing allocations or
only those delegated
> after the policy is implemented?
>
> Implementation:
>
> This proposal may require changes to the system.
>
> If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation may be
completed within
> 3 months.
>
> Regards,
> Sunny
> APNIC Secretariat
>
> On 11/08/2022 5:01 pm, chku wrote:
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
>
>
> The proposal "prop-148: Leasing of Resources is not
Acceptable" has been
>
> sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
>
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at
APNIC 54 on
>
> Thursday, 15 September 2022.
>
>
>
>
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
>
>
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on
the mailing list
>
> before the OPM.
>
>
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is
an important
>
> part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We
encourage you to
>
> express your views on the proposal:
>
>
>
> - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
>
> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are
experiencing? If so,
>
> tell the community about your situation.
>
> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
>
> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>
> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make
it more effective?
>
>
>
> Information about this proposal is appended below as well
as available at:
>
>
>
>
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
>
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
(
jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
>
> Amrita Choudhury (
amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
>
> Fernando Frediani (
fhfredani@gmail.com)
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 direct connectivity service.
>
>
>
> 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, the
justification of the need implies the need to directly connect
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is not
considered acceptable, nor does it justify the need, if it is
not part of a set of services based, at the very least, on
direct connectivity. 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.
>
>
>
> If any form of leasing is confirmed by an APNIC
investigation, APNIC may revoke the IP resources of account
holders who are leasing or using them for any purposes not
specified in the initial request.
>
>
>
> This includes, but not limited to, the following:
>
> - Removing delegations from the Whois database.
>
> - Removing related ROAs.
>
> - Stop providing APNIC services.
>
>
>
> Members of the NIR are subject to the same policy.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arin.net%2Fparticipate%2Fpolicy%2Fproposals%2F2022%2FARIN_prop_308_v2%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C10362f529b0e4536949408da7b677a41%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637957981611076664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uhhDD0kaOyJOxHiWa7Z%2BckfPwe9ohLQsidzS9u4BUHo%3D&reserved=0
>
>
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticas.lacnic.net%2Fpoliticas%2Fdetail%2Fid%2FLAC-2022-2%2Flanguage%2Fen&data=05%7C01%7C%7C10362f529b0e4536949408da7b677a41%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637957981611076664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p7nZJRM2zzi2kBOyLeSA%2BOo1qGTU1rBB3VIvQoaLYz0%3D&reserved=0
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> sig-policy -
https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
>
> Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
>
>
>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel:
+61 7 3858 3100
>
> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax:
+61 7 3858 3199
>
> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD |
http://www.apnic.net
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s)
>
> and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized
>
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the
>
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
email and destroy all
>
> copies of the original message.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
sig-policy -
https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to
sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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.
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
>
> Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
>
>
>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel:
+61 7 3858 3100
>
> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax:
+61 7 3858 3199
>
> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD |
http://www.apnic.net
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s)
>
> and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized
>
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the
>
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
email and destroy all
>
> copies of the original message.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> sig-policy -
https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy -
https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to
sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net