<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Mike, that is not correct information.<br>
Let's clarify it in order to not get people confused in any way.<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>But we are talking about leasing practices not definitive
transfers.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 ?</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/05/2019 16:14, Mike Burns wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00fb01d5171b$e71ef820$b55ce860$@iptrading.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.tlid-translation
{mso-style-name:tlid-translation;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Hi Fernando,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Every RIR
allows address holders to sell their blocks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Let that
sink in. Sell their blocks and keep the money.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">If this
doesn’t sit well with you, there are five RIRs to whom you
can introduce a policy change.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">You can
pretend companies are selling something they don’t own, you
can pretend that they are required to return unused
addresses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Neither is
true in ARIN.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">They can
return them to the RIR, too, and inexplicably some do.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">And none of
this is against policy. And all of this “binds to the
current rules.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Regards,<br>
Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="color:windowtext"> ARIN-PPML
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net"><arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Fernando
Frediani<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'arin-ppml' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"><arin-ppml@arin.net></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Mike, sorry to disagree with you again about this topic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<br>
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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Fernando<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 30/05/2019 14:44, Mike Burns wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Hi
Fernando,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">If you
search “ipv4 leasing” you will find this practice
widespread globally.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">We have
transitioned from the original distribution mechanism of
the RIRs before exhaust, to a new mechanism.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">The new
mechanism is the IPv4 market.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">You are
free to ignore it or tilt against it, but is the current
state of affairs. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Regards,<br>
Mike</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="color:windowtext"> ARIN-PPML <a
href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true"><arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Fernando Frediani<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:46 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> arin-ppml <a
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true"><arin-ppml@arin.net></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>+1<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<br>
And some of these attempts come from people who apparently
have high financial interests in this <span
class="tlid-translation"><span lang="EN">deviation from
purpose of IP space</span></span>, but try to make it
look like it is "for the good of the Internet".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<br>
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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 !<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Shall we focus ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Fernando<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 30/05/2019 12:25, Jimmy Hess wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 5:26 PM Scott Leibrand <a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><scottleibrand@gmail.com></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>(New subject line for a new topic.)<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>You just described a lease policy: one where leasing is not allowed. Such a policy would<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>have to exist to be enforced. Right now there is no policy, so leasing is allowed because<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>it's not prohibited.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Actually not. ARIN's Policy does not have to contain a specific<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>prohibition for every form of abuse --- The PDP describes when<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>IP addresses can be allocated, and any intended Usage for IP<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>resources that is not provided by an allocation policy should not<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>get past ARIN's required reviews.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>An organization attempting to misrepresent to ARIN the nature of<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that organization and their business, the need for IP addresses, or<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the intended use for IP addresses and then after receiving an allocation<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>proceeding to "leasing" IP addresses without services would be fraud.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>"We have no allocations but want a /22 of IP addresses, b/c we intend<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>to open up shop and lease /24s to qualified applicants..." should Not<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>and even pass muster under the current policies and required reviews<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>--- ISPs should in fact be able to show through sufficient connectivity<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>contracts, etc, that they have procured an ISP network; If they cannot, then<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>they are not providing Internet Services, then they are not an ISP.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>ISPs lease space to their customers all the time, bundled with IP connectivity. [...]<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>No.... ISPs provide services related to global IP connectivity and allocate<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>in the amount of IP addresses required for use with that ISP's services;<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the IPs are not a separate thing that an ISP may offer to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>others who are not current customers of their ISP business.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>Hosting companies do the same. So do VPN providers.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Hosting companies and VPN providers with a working network and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>customers to serve are ISPs; they are in the business of providing<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>internet connectivity to "devices" that are owned or rented by<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>external customers.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre> The challenge with a "no leasing allowed" policy is differentiating ....<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>There is no need to differentiate. A re-assignment or allocation<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>is something that ISPs do to allow a customer use of IP addresses<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>necessary in order to have internet connectivity<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>through that ISP's services OR to allocate a range of IP addresses to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>another ISP who is their customer, After the allocating ISP<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>reviews and verifies their customer's network design and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>IP address justification documentation accordingly.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>You can tell if an organization is an ISP, and not "Leasing" IP addresses,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>because an ISP will only allocate or assign according to justified need<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>respecting ARIN's required Policies and terms<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>regarding customers required to return IP addresses and requiring and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>confirming that downstream customers adhere to required ARIN policies.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>4.2.3.3 and 4.2.3.4 through 7*<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>"The original ISP should allow sufficient time for the renumbering process<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>to be completed before requiring the address space to be returned."<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>"ISPs must require their downstream customers to adhere to the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>following criteria: ...".<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>A "leasing of IPs" is a fraudulent action not authorized by the ARIN RSA which<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>involves a holder of number resources purporting to Rent "ownership"<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>to property they do not have ---<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that is, a block of IP resources as if those were a piece of property that<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>may be retained or procured by an end user organization for speculative<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>purposes or "in case of possible future need some down the road"<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>without ever actually using or having a valid justification to receive/hold<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the IP resources.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>--<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>-JH<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>