Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG

  • To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-119: Temporary transfers, to be discussed at APNIC 44 Polic y SIG
  • From: David Hilario <d.hilario@laruscloudservice.net>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:50:08 +0300
  • Cc: sig-policy <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • In-reply-to: <37679C33-BD98-451C-A12C-0D55215D4F78@delong.com>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <1502259380.63525.chku@twnic.net.tw> <CAHXx+kRBbXEU_RhYMXhqUZq2QC+LYwtco_v1tscf_XEUQRE9gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPjAVqZw=Vo-Uo5HJoVQhUKJ-4-pUegKdqfXA+JDU7SkRW+mcg@mail.gmail.com> <CANoO2f5rfUYwdb=80Gb-sxGaXKaTdH4m1AjNJ3XrNu+h0+3PZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK5YLgcrs44sB4AzQqWgxfvXJhnqijWzRNWH48_fRwosaFKS_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAAvCx3gisN8prdn9vZszPLj5jCv4JEQFCCTZEtK0rC14LUJ0Gg@mail.gmail.com> <37679C33-BD98-451C-A12C-0D55215D4F78@delong.com>

    • Hi,
      
      
      On 12 September 2017 at 20:04, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
      >
      > On Aug 18, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Aftab:
      >
      > I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on
      > reality.
      >
      >
      > Aftab’s description of spammer operations is very much based in reality.
      >
      > Spammers merely need one to two-month space, and they disappear soon. Thus,
      > there is no point for them to undergo this temporary transfer in order to
      > sort out all the APNIC membership with a huge amount of paper work when they
      > can simply pay (or hijack) for an announcement and have their spam job done.
      >
      >
      > You’d be surprised.
      >
      > Have you ever experienced during your operation history: a spammer come to
      > you and say, 'hey we want to have a proper RIR registration in our name. For
      > this we are so scared that you will take away space from us while we are
      > spamming?’
      >
      >
      > Usually they aim for RIR registration in the name of one of their shell
      > companies, but I don’t see any reason that this temporary transfer policy
      > wouldn’t also be used that way.
      >
      > Could you answer that directly?
      >
      > The policy which aims to bring more accurate whois database for today's
      > leasing market of space actually forces leaser to register their leaser's
      > information in the whois database by offering protection of leasee and
      > leaser's interest and by agreeing to set an amount time of ownership. One of
      > the biggest risks faced by leasee is the probability of the leaser
      > cancelling assignment or sub-allocation. This will lead to operation problem
      > if they are not ready for network renumbering. In this sense, the protection
      > can be an incentive for leasees to register their information properly.
      >
      >
      > In my observation, the primary users of today’s “leasing market” of IPv4
      > address space are, in fact, snowshoe spammers, so you’re kind of making
      > Aftab’s case here.
      >
      
      Yes, they need short time "lease" which they get through PA
      registration, one quick SWIP and they have the network they need for
      the coming days/weeks/months, they do not intended to lease on basis
      of years or even quarterly so semi annual basis, they need short
      terms, they also do not need large amounts a /24 or slightly more is
      enough, they need them often, new and clean, that would not be easier
      by having a temporary transfer policy in place.
      
      For what its worth, the cheapest and fastest manner for anyone is
      actually opening memberships at APNIC or RIPE, you get guaranteed
      fresh blocks.
      Only thing one needs to do is register a new company, infrastructure
      to justify the IPs with APNIC is already there anyways if you are in
      that business.
      So if we are talking about spammers the new LIR process is where they
      have the most friendly interface to deal with, rather then dealing
      with established LIRs that do not want to see their address space
      blacklisted.
      
      I unfortunately have no clue how this can be reduced through policy,
      but this is a reality.
      As long as we have space reserved for new entrants, we will offer a
      fresh IP service to networks in need of that alonside all the others
      who have a genuine need.
      
      It was mentioned today during prep-116, a membership is cheaper than a
      transfer in the first place, small amount of space is just cheaper by
      opening new memberships.
      
      
      Changing any process in the other parts of the IPV4 policy does not
      render the work of spammer easier when it already cannot be easier
      than that to procure fresh new IPs on demand via the RIR directly.
      
      Regards,
      David
      
      > Owen
      >
      >
      > On 18 August 2017 at 07:22, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >>>
      >>> It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers.
      >>>
      >>
      >> And?
      >>
      >>>
      >>> It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able
      >>> or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or
      >>> sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for
      >>> full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time.
      >>
      >>
      >> Solution is simple, if the organization is not interested in receiving the
      >> resources as assignments and sub-allocations then just buy it.
      >>
      >> What is full control? creation of route-objects? or anything which can't
      >> be done by sending an email to helpdesk@apnic.net?
      >>
      >>>
      >>> I do not believe that spammer would benefit from this policy as they
      >>> would have to register with APNIC as members and provide all the
      >>> needed paperwork such as company registration papers, ID/passports,
      >>> billing address etc...
      >>
      >>
      >> It will definitely support the spammers by all means. You temperorary
      >> transfer resource to Spammer, they do their thing and get black listed
      >> everywhere and then you get the resources back and ask everyone that we are
      >> the new owner of this resource so kindly remove all the listing. REPEAT.
      >>
      >>>
      >>> They are much better off renting a /24 from the black market with no
      >>> traces or documented changes ion the address block.
      >>
      >>
      >> Yup, let them pay black market rates for black market business model.
      >>
      >> And what will be the temporary transfer fees? same as permanent transfer
      >> fees? or free?
      >>
      >> In order to resolve a corner case it will open up opertunities for
      >> spammers. I stronly oppose it.
      >> --
      >> Best Wishes,
      >>
      >> Aftab A. Siddiqui
      >>
      >> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
      >> *
      >> _______________________________________________
      >> sig-policy mailing list
      >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
      >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > --
      > Kind regards.
      > Lu
      >
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
      > *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
      > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      >
      >
      >
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
      > *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
      > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy