Hi Skeeve, all
My interpretation of the policy is that leasing is not covered by APNIC policy. That is to say that it does not allow, or disallow it.
The Policy SIG Chairs asked me to assist them to draft a report on the leasing discussion from the APNIC 36 Policy SIG meeting in Xi'an.
This will be shared with the sig-policy and apnic-talk mailing lists shortly, so that the community can engage in further discussion with the benefit of the inputs already gathered from the discussion in Xi'an.
Regards,
Adam
--
Adam Gosling
Senior Policy Specialist email: adam at apnic dot net
APNIC sip: adam at voip dot apnic dot net
http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
________________________________________________________________________
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
On 1/10/13 2:14 AM, "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com> wrote:
Hi Elvis,
Sorry about the number of emails. I had not had the time to review the APNIC AMM meeting video as I was unable to make it to the last meeting.
Firstly, I think you are incorrect in assuming that anything not expressly permitted by the policies is forbidden. I could suggest that anything not expressly forbidden by the policies is allowed... which, imho makes more sense..... but is certainly an
arguable item ;-)
I agree with you, Dean, Tom and others... that knowing who is assigned an end-ip is very important... but, I'd like to point out a couple of things.
- At the moment we rarely know who is actually using a particular address.. especially on dynamic assignments, and mostly just identifies the LIR. Even if an end-user is identified, that is mostly a company and almost rarely a 'useful' end user of any
sorts.
- I am a big supporter of policy to clarify ambiguity, so that people know what they are and are not entitled to do.
- That said, I am ONLY a supporter of policy that can actually be enforced in some way.
- Given this position. In the situation of address space leasing, should the lessor and lessee wish to keep the matter confidential, there is almost no way for the RIR or others to even know about the situation.
I saw some at Xi'an attempt to clarify where the practice of current end-customer usage of address space was defined, but most of those arguments weren't really of any definable manner that takes into account the flexible nature of peoples business models.
Someone said that they should be a 'customer' before 'leasing' them address space. I'd argue that them leasing that space, makes them a customer... and how dare anyone attempt to define who or what I call a customer. To take Randy's (Bush) perspective...
don't tell me how to run my network - or my business..
Like prop-050 and my the arguments I raised in March 2009 (4.5 years ago) I brought up this possibility (of address leasing) and the issues involved in policing it. The issue back then was the same (from my perspective)... is that unenforceable policy
should be avoided at all costs, as it is just another document that will waste everyones time.
As Aftab pointed out... there are many companies in his region doing this already. I know of some leasing agreements in country (Australia) where the leasing agreements have been working fine for the parties involved - just not necessarily the community.
...Skeeve
Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Elvis Velea
<elvis at velea dot eu> wrote:
Hi Skeeve,
|