[arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

Mike Burns mike at iptrading.com
Thu May 30 16:25:16 EDT 2019

Hi Fernando,


I said sellers in every RIR can sell their addresses and keep the money, LACNIC included.

I authored the policy that commenced and have brokered most of the deals down there.

I can assure you the sellers are keeping the money. Well, not all of it. 😉


You are correct that justification is required in LACNIC, APNIC and ARIN, but not in RIPE.


You are also correct that we are not discussing transfers, but leases.

I only brought up transfers in the context of your claim that these assets were not property, when in fact they are.

Property owned by companies around the world, much like they own licenses, intellectual property, spectrum, etc.

Property limited by the rights of other parties (like the RIRs),  you are correct that these rights are constrained by RIR policy.


And the current RIR policies allow blocks to be bought and sold just like real estate.

Even real estate sales are subject to policies like mandatory recording of transfers.

Real estate is also leased, and so are IPv4 blocks.


You ask a good question about why leased blocks are not counted towards justification and I think there is a discussion to be had there.

But is not-counting-as-valid-use-for-justification the same thing as banning leasing?


*In my opinion*, it is not, and there is no policy banning leasing. Given this absence and given the value of ipv4 blocks, leasing is happening today. 

I think there is value in bringing leasing into the light of day, and creating policy to support our mandate for accurate registration.


I am leaning towards an NRPM 8.6 section and happily accepting input, private or public.









From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 3:39 PM
To: 'arin-ppml' <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy


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 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 ?


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. 





From: ARIN-PPML  <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:54 PM
To: 'arin-ppml'  <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <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.


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.




From: ARIN-PPML  <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:46 PM
To: arin-ppml  <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy



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 ?


On 30/05/2019 12:25, Jimmy Hess wrote:

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:26 PM Scott Leibrand  <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com> <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. and 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190530/bf2a885e/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list