[arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Thu May 30 15:39:26 EDT 2019


Mike, that is not correct information.
Let's clarify it in order to not get people confused in any way.

LACNIC for example doesn't recognize this and is perfectly clear in its 
policy manual under section 2.3.2.17. They do allow transfers and they 
don't want to know or get involved if that transfer was upon a financial 
compensation or not. The important thing to highlight here is that 
addresses are transferred to someone that has a proper justification for 
that use either for internal or end-users, so the receiving ASN **must 
justify**, otherwise if the RIR recognized a buy/sell operation a 
justification wouldn't be needed so it would be a personal property that 
can be sold freely without any justification.

The rights-to-use that you mention are bind to certain rules and if 
these rules doesn't allow to treat them as a real estate asset then they 
will not be treated as such just because it is beneficial to those who 
intermediate the operation or to those who speculate upon it.

But we are talking about leasing practices not definitive transfers.
I understand your business reasoning to say things like "binds to the 
current rules" or "is not against policy" but that sounds more a 
personal opinion than a fact.

If it binds to and it not against why it is not accepted as a 
justification by the RIR to receive more IP space ? Why can't the data 
be properly updated ?

Regards
Fernando

On 30/05/2019 16:14, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Hi Fernando,
>
> Every RIR allows address holders to sell their blocks.
>
> Let that sink in. Sell their blocks and keep the money.
>
> If this doesn’t sit well with you, there are five RIRs to whom you can 
> introduce a policy change.
>
> You can pretend companies are selling something they don’t own, you 
> can pretend that they are required to return unused addresses.
>
> Neither is true in ARIN.
>
> They are selling their rights-to-use and rights-to-register. They own 
> these rights, they can sell these rights, they can lease these rights.
>
> They can return them to the RIR, too, and inexplicably some do.
>
> And none of this is against policy. And all of this “binds to the 
> current rules.”
>
> Since leasing is not against policy, it is done.  In this context I 
> think it might be advisable to require things that mirror the 
> requirements historically imposed on ISPs when they re-assign space.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> *From:*ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> *On Behalf Of *Fernando 
> Frediani
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:54 PM
> *To:* 'arin-ppml' <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy
>
> Mike, sorry to disagree with you again about this topic.
>
> The mechanism is to adapt the RIR policies for this new scenario where 
> the RIR keeps total control of it instead of delegating to private 
> companies to speculate on something they or their customers do not own.
>
> Those who do things against the RIR's mandate and do not keep the 
> registration accurate are the ones wrong in this history. They must 
> bind to the current rules and not try to force the RIR to something 
> that may only benefit a small portion of community and very private 
> interests. The RIR doesn't have to adapt to all kinds of practices 
> just because they are being done anyway.
> If this affects abuse complaints and law enforcement there is always 
> someone responsible to be called up, in this case the person who is 
> leasing (and therefore not using) the resource instead of transferring 
> to someone else which is permitted by current rules.
>
> The same way there are plenty of people which find a big deviation of 
> the use IP space should ever have and prefer to keep this control in 
> the hands of the RIR so things can be done more fairly and not let 
> them be negotiated as a kind of real estate business.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 30/05/2019 14:44, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>     Hi Fernando,
>
>     If you search “ipv4 leasing”  you will find this practice
>     widespread globally.
>
>     We have transitioned from the original distribution mechanism of
>     the RIRs before exhaust, to a new mechanism.
>
>     The new mechanism is the IPv4 market.
>
>     You are free to ignore it or tilt against it, but is the current
>     state of affairs.
>
>     In this state, without a specific policy regarding leasing,
>     leasing happens in a way that is sometimes working against the
>     RIR’s mandate regarding accurate registration. This has effects
>     for abuse complaints and law enforcement activities, so there are
>     probably varied constituents among the ARIN community who might
>     see some value in a lease policy.
>
>     In the context of the global anti-hijacking proposals which have
>     largely been deemed out-of-scope, a lease policy has some results
>     that are sympathetic to the goals of those proposals.
>
>     Regards,
>     Mike
>
>     *From:*ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
>     <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani
>     *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:46 PM
>     *To:* arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>     *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy
>
>     +1
>
>     What I am seeing by some positions are attempts to turn a
>     fraudulent act into "something normal" because "market demands"
>     and a total diversion of what IP space should ever be making look
>     normal a company who received IP space from the RIR and **does not
>     use it** rent it to someone else a ownership of a property they do
>     not have.
>     And some of these attempts come from people who apparently have
>     high financial interests in this deviation from purpose of IP
>     space, but try to make it look like it is "for the good of the
>     Internet".
>
>     Trying to resume it in different terms it looks like in the recent
>     IPv4 exhaustion times some individuals wish to go for
>     "all-or-nothing" and make up rules to allow them to have easy
>     access to IPv4 space via a shortcut and in front of many other
>     people, bypassing the RIR if possible regardless how.
>     It has always been clear to many professionals what IP allocation
>     by an ISP to its customers means, doesn't even need to explain
>     much, it is obvious, but then there are attempts to make leasing a
>     property they don't own something acceptable and normal.
>
>     We are here discussing rules for a waiting list to make it
>     something fair and that all can be treated in the same way, but
>     suddenly some see they feel "more equal than others" demanding to
>     have ways to access IP space in a more privileged way than those
>     who are patiently waiting. Strange times !
>
>     Shall we focus ?
>
>     Fernando
>
>     On 30/05/2019 12:25, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
>         On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:26 PM Scott Leibrand<scottleibrand at gmail.com>  <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>             (New subject line for a new topic.)
>
>             You just described a lease policy: one where leasing is not allowed.  Such a policy would
>
>             have to exist to be enforced.  Right now there is no policy, so leasing is allowed because
>
>             it's not prohibited.
>
>           
>
>         Actually not.   ARIN's Policy does not have to contain a specific
>
>         prohibition for every form of abuse --- The PDP describes when
>
>         IP addresses can be allocated,  and any intended Usage for IP
>
>         resources that is not provided by an allocation policy should not
>
>         get past ARIN's required reviews.
>
>           
>
>         An organization attempting to misrepresent to ARIN the nature of
>
>         that organization and their business, the need for IP addresses,  or
>
>         the intended use for IP addresses and then after receiving an allocation
>
>         proceeding to "leasing"  IP addresses without services would be fraud.
>
>           
>
>         "We have no allocations but want a /22 of IP addresses,  b/c we intend
>
>         to open up shop and lease /24s to qualified applicants..."  should Not
>
>         and even pass muster under the current policies and required reviews
>
>         ---  ISPs  should in fact be able to show through sufficient connectivity
>
>         contracts, etc, that they have procured an ISP network;   If they cannot,  then
>
>         they are not providing Internet Services,  then they are not an ISP.
>
>           
>
>             ISPs lease space to their customers all the time, bundled with IP connectivity.   [...]
>
>           
>
>         No....    ISPs  provide services related to global IP connectivity and allocate
>
>         in the amount of IP addresses required for use with that ISP's services;
>
>         the IPs are not a separate thing that an ISP may offer to
>
>         others who are not current customers of their ISP business.
>
>           
>
>             Hosting companies do the same.  So do VPN providers.
>
>           
>
>         Hosting companies and VPN providers with a working network and
>
>         customers to serve are ISPs;  they are in the business of providing
>
>         internet connectivity to "devices" that are owned or rented by
>
>         external customers.
>
>           
>
>               The challenge with a "no leasing allowed" policy is differentiating ....
>
>           
>
>         There is no need to differentiate.   A  re-assignment or allocation
>
>         is something that ISPs do to allow a customer use of IP addresses
>
>         necessary in order to have internet connectivity
>
>         through that ISP's services OR to allocate a range of IP addresses to
>
>         another ISP who is their customer,  After the allocating ISP
>
>         reviews and verifies their customer's  network design and
>
>         IP address justification documentation accordingly.
>
>           
>
>           
>
>         You can tell if an organization is an ISP,  and not "Leasing" IP addresses,
>
>         because an ISP will only allocate or assign according to justified need
>
>         respecting ARIN's required Policies and terms
>
>           
>
>         regarding customers required to return IP addresses and requiring and
>
>         confirming that downstream customers adhere to required ARIN policies.
>
>         4.2.3.3 and  4.2.3.4 through 7*
>
>           
>
>         "The original ISP should allow sufficient time for the renumbering process
>
>         to be completed before requiring the address space to be returned."
>
>         "ISPs must require their downstream customers to adhere to the
>
>         following criteria: ...".
>
>           
>
>         A  "leasing of IPs" is a fraudulent action not authorized by the ARIN RSA which
>
>         involves a holder of number resources purporting to Rent "ownership"
>
>         to property they do not have ---
>
>           
>
>         that is, a block of IP resources as if those were a piece of property that
>
>         may be retained or procured by an end user organization for speculative
>
>         purposes or "in case of possible future need some down the road"
>
>         without ever actually using or having a valid justification to receive/hold
>
>         the IP resources.
>
>           
>
>           
>
>         --
>
>         -JH
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190530/c80e1835/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list