Hi Jordi,

Hah, sorry, my reply went to your first message but all my points hold.

No, you are not being clear.  Leasing is not the same as justification and you are not clarifying things, quite the opposite.

I am not saying leased addresses can be used for justification. But that does not preclude existing address holders from leasing out their addresses nor does it preclude APNIC members leasing addresses from other members in order to use them.

Can you point me to the “fundamental change in usage“ language you mention below in APNIC policy that renders addresses revokable?  This might be the most important element in our discussion.

Regards,

Mike

Sorry the email went thru while I was still preparing it …

APNIC confirmed to the authors, that “leasing is not recognized as a valid “use” of resources”.

Further to that, to receive resources for the purpose of “leasing” them to other parties is not recognized under APNIC policies as an acceptable use. APNIC resources are delegated based on demonstrated needs. In order to receive resources (by allocation from APNIC or through transfer from others), the recipient must demonstrate their need for those resources by describing the proposed use of the resources in some specific network infrastructure which they own or control. Implicitly, the recipient could not receive addresses for subsequent reallocation to other purposes, because the actual use of the addresses would be unknown and cannot be subjected to the required assessment of the need.

APNIC policies also state that if the declared use of allocated resources changes fundamentally, then the resources may be subject to reclamation by APNIC.

Is not that clear enough?

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.

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

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 2^nd 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 3^rd 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

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

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.